Re: "new bugs" already fixed
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:33:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Simon Huggins (email@example.com) [080509 12:20]:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:39:28AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:37:51AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 09:27:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > > telegnome (- to 0.1.0-3)
> > > > > Maintainer: Colin Watson
> > > > > Too young, only 1 of 10 days old
> > > > > out of date on alpha: telegnome (from 0.0.10-7)
> > > > > out of date on hppa: telegnome (from 0.0.10-7)
> > > > > telegnome (source, i386, alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc, armel) has new bugs!
> > > > > Updating telegnome introduces new bugs: #464331
> > > > > Not considered
> > > > In BugsV there is "telegnome 464331". This is because the package is
> > > > not in sync on all architectures and thus contains buggy versions in
> > > > unstable (0.0.10-7).
> > > Ah, right. Sorry for the false alarm, then!
> > It does say "introduces new bugs" (twice) and "has new bugs". These
> > aren't true; the bugs are only in the out of date package.
> In case it would migrate to testing as is, a new RC bug would be present
> in some of the binary packages. In case only armel would be
> out-of-date, it would even be relevant to not allow testing migration.
Ok, as an Englishman I read:
Updating telegnome introduces new bugs: #464331
When I update telegnome in testing from 0.0.10-7 (with RC bugs)
to 0.1.0-3 (without), there is a new bug which didn't exist
which is untrue.
If the *newer* teleglobe had an RC bug I would understand this output
but as it doesn't it seems a little odd.
Perhaps it could just keep the out of date stuff and drop the bug
stuff in this case where the bug is on the old version not the new
----------( <seamonkey> ca suxx irssi y'a pas le autojoin )----------
----------( <Yeiazel> ca sux seamonkey y'a pas )----------
Simon ----( l'anti-imbécilités )---- Nomis