Bug#353447: Weird suggestion on closing bugs fixed in NMU
reopen 353447
thanks
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 04:40:27PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> To my big surprise, I read in section 6.3.2:
>
> | It is an old tradition to acknowledge bugs fixed in non-maintainer
> | uploads in the first changelog entry of the proper maintainer upload,
> | for instance, in a changelog entry like this:
> |
> | * Maintainer upload, closes: #42345, #44484, #42444.
> |
> | This will close the NMU bugs tagged "fixed" when the package makes it
> | into the archive. The bug for the fact that an NMU was done can be
> | closed the same way. Of course, it's also perfectly acceptable to close
> | NMU-fixed bugs by other means; see Responding to bugs, Section 5.8.2.
>
> Which is IMHO wrong advice: The bug submitter will then get this
> statement as a bug closing mail, while the bug wasn't closed by this
> upload! I think this practice should rather be strongly discouraged,
> rather than encouraged.
>
> The best practice IMHO is to use dpkg-buildpackage -v<last maintainer
> upload> on the maintainer upload, thereby including the changelogs bits
> for the NMU's, and not mention any bugs that were not solely "I NMU'd,
> here's a patch" type of bugs. In general, it should IMHO be
> emphasised that a Closes: statement in a changelog should at all
> times refer to something that actually really is closing/fixing the
> bug in question, rather than procedural stuff etc.
>
> With dpkg-buildpackage -v, the submitter of a bug will get as
> explanation the changelog bit that actually made his bug get resolved.
I don't believe this is addressed, section 5.11.6 doesn't mention
anything about why to use -v, and doesn't discourage using a huge list
of closes.
In my opinion, it should really discourage doing so except for actual
bugs of "I NMU'd, this is the full patch". Since versioned closes on
NMU's are now a reality, it could really be totally discouraged to
actually use these lists of closes in case the NMU's were done after
this change in dak.
The alternative of manually closing the bug (versioned!) with
explanation is of course also a (good) possiblity, it's just the
informationless list of closes that IMHO really should be forbidden :).
Thanks,
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: