On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:26:10PM +0100, Alexandre Pineau wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote: > > If you reassign 236428 to any xfree86 package, I will reassign it right > > back to liquidwar. > > Why? > I quote the original bug report 236428 : > > Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Mar 2004 08:09:14 +0000 > [...] > > Package: libxext-dev > Version: 4.3.0-2 > Severity: normal [...] > /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so when searching > for -lXext > /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.a when searching > for -lXext > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lXext > > I really don't think it's a liquidwar bug. You have reasign the bug to liquidwar. > What can I do with this bug now? I can't close it. Can I reasign it to libxext-dev > again? There's two ways to view this bug: 1) As a duplicate of #233645, #234772, and #236132, which were already merged, fixed, and had been closed for over a week at the time #236428 was filed. 2) As a report that liquidwar FTBFSed and needed to be rebuilt. If the former, then yes, it can be reassigned to me. If the latter, then once liquidwar has been rebuilt and uploaded (which I think has already happened), then it can be closed. The code flaw was absolutely xfree86's fault, I agree with that; the question is whether it's a good idea to repurpose this bug as a FTBFS report against liquidwar under the circumstances. The point is kind of academic now as the bug can be closed either way, so I'm closing it. -- G. Branden Robinson | Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux | best of all possible worlds. branden@debian.org | Pessimists are afraid the optimists http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | are right about that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature