Bug#802880: (qtcreator: not really a bug)

[Adam Majer <adamm@zombino.com>]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:40:18PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 02:33:04PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Hi, this bug is invalid.
> 
> Uhm, no?

Actually, yes. Uninstallable packages can exist in unstable until they
are either fixed or removed. It's not really necessary to file these
bugs since these are already part of known transitions.

  https://packages.qa.debian.org/q/qtcreator.html
  https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/qtbase-abi-5-5-1.html


> > 3.5.0+dfsg-2+b1
> > Rebuild against qtbase-abi-5-5-1.
> 
> If so, the binNMU fixes this bug (and should nominally have a Closes: line
> with the bug number, except the bug was probably filed after the binNMU was
> scheduled). Thank you for taking care of that.

No, binNMUs do not change the package source. There is no changelog entry.


> In particular, having a bug in the BTS will enable users to see that the
> issue is on its way to being fixed (or not, for some architectures, as you
> mention). :-)

This is of no use to anyone. As I wrote above, these things are
already tracked outside BTS. Sid can have uninstallable packages -
that is normal. If you prefer to have more consistent set of packages,
please use testing distribution instead.

Few weeks ago there was a quite large stdlibc++ transition affecting
hundreds of packages. No bugs were filed because of missing g++ 5
symbols (unless packages needed manual modification to complete
transition, and these were filed months in advance).

Cheers,
- Adam


-- 
Adam Majer
adamm@zombino.com