[Amavisd-new-debian-devel] Closing but reports #530745 and #599514

[Harald Jenny]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:42:28PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Harald Jenny wrote:
> > both mentioned bugs were fixed in version 2.6.2 of amavisd-new which is present
> > in Debian stable, for oldstable a backport is available, so is it ok to close
> > these bugs as fixed?
> 
> As long as a version is provided, so that the BTS versioning can handle
> it (do remember that the full version string needs to be used, and that
> DOES include epochs, so you have to include the epoch "1:" for
> amavisd-new), it is always ok to close a bug.

Yes I know (openswan also has an epoch in it).

> 
> If you're not going to provide a version, closing a bug still active on
> stable is definately not ok. 

Well if the bug is fixed then I will also test which version fixed this bug so
there will be a version to provide.

> Oldstable is less of a problem (so I'm not
> going to complain about it), but can still mislead some users into not
> being able to find a problem in their oldstable installs.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=530745
Here it's obvious that the bug was closed before stable

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=599514
Here the info about the fix is in the bug report itself (and verified by
looking at the mailing list archives).

But if you think it's better to keep the bug reports open until support for
Lenny is being dropped that is ok for me too, I'm just an uploader who wants to
act policy compliant.

> 
> For example:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/version.cgi?info=1;absolute=0;fixed=2.6.2-1;collapse=1;found=2.6.1.dfsg-1;package=amavisd-new

Hmmm I guess you are referring to #559875?

> 
> that bug is not fixed in oldstable, so it would be best to reopen it,
> mark it notfound on amavisd-new/1:2.6.4-3, and found on
> amavisd-new/1:2.6.1.dfsg-1.  Otherwise, users won't even easily _find_
> it after it gets archived so they won't even know about the
> workaround...

Well to be honest I think that this problem was introduced before me getting
involved:

Bug Marked as fixed in versions 2.6.2-1. Request was from Alexander Wirt <formorer at debian.org> to control at bugs.debian.org. (Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:42:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

I suspect that this message caused the wrong tree - I will correct it now, 
should I reopen the bug too?

> 
> -- 
>   "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
>   them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
>   where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
>   Henrique Holschuh