On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 10:15:49AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > Sending a message to control@ to close a bug with NO EXPLANATION > > sent to the submitter is not acceptable. In this case, until libc6 > > depends on libdb1-compat so that upgrades from woody work correctly, > > the bug can't be closed. If you feel there is some reason that > > libc6 should not be supporting partial upgrades from woody (a > > definate change from Debian's usual policy in this manner), you can > > send an explanation, but I don't think anyone will find it > > sufficient. > > Sure, but that's a *different* bug. Which you're welcome to submit Oh, please. You closed all of them, including the one that was reopened with the explanation that it needed the dependency. > (or just accept that it's been fixed in our CVS, and the next version > has the dependancy set). Being fixed in your CVS does not hold the broken package out of sarge. Having the RC bug open in the BTS does. > the bug because it wasn't current (apache has been upgraded and works > fine now). It does not fix apache on systems that partially upgrade to some sarge/sid packages. Until it does, the bug should remain open. If retitling it would help you, I can do that. -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (rmurray@cyberhqz.com, rmurray@debian.org) The opinions expressed here are my own.
Attachment:
pgphQxJqNzixN.pgp
Description: PGP signature