[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#697602: marked as done (Bug count confusion when "unrelated" binary and source has same name)

Your message dated Sat, 13 Dec 2025 19:19:05 +0100
with message-id <b2330578-6bbc-4165-819c-b9ecc556888a@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug count confusion when "unrelated" binary and source has same name
has caused the Debian Bug report #697602,
regarding Bug count confusion when "unrelated" binary and source has same name
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
697602: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=697602
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: britney

Adam, Julien and I talked about this in #d-qa today and it turns out
that Britney cannot reliably distinguish between RC bugs affecting
source packages and RC bugs affecting binary packages.

If a source package produces and identically named binary
(e.g. src:eclipse produces a binary named eclipse), it usually doesn't
matter which of them gets the "blame".  The problem is when a binary
has the same name as a source that _doesn't_ built it.  An example
in the archive being:

 source:sm builds binary r-cran-sm,
 source:screen-message builds binary sm

If a BugsV file contains "sm 123456" Britney will assume that RC bug
applies to _both_ the source package "sm" and the binary "sm" (and
thus "screen-message").

~Niels

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On 12/11/25 11:51, Paul Gevers wrote:

I think the fix on the britney2 side is trivial, see below.



It took a bit more.
As bug 1078610 is currently showing, the bts seems to be the one that's confused. It doesn't export that bug at all. Once it would, it would have 
"""
src:fuse 1078610
"""
in the rc_bugs_unstable and rc_bugs_testing file and all could made fine.
I'll create an MR with this (or push straight to master) after more testing. 


I've push commit 8443ac4 to solve this.

Test case bug-697602-a no longer fails.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: