Unarchive the following likely erroneously archived bugs

[Paul Gevers]

Hi Don,

No offense intended anywhere, but I have the impression documentation
and/or communication can be improved somewhere. I hope this discussion
is leading to that.

On 18-12-17 20:33, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> Well, it doesn't help that we are not aware that that is the reason.
>> The bts doesn't tell us. All I see is an old bug that doesn't get
>> archived.
> 
> The version graph is how I knew what was going on, and that's linked
> from the bug pages:
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/version.cgi?info=1;found=brltty%2F5.3.1-1;package=brltty;absolute=0;collapse=1;fixed=brltty%2F5.3.1-2

You are right. But that wasn't a place where I expected an answer to the
question why it wasn't archived.

> You can also get more information if you ask for a bug to be archived
> with debugging on.

Huh, I never new that one could do that. It isn't mentioned on
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control. So how does one do that and
where is it documented?

>> There is probably something wrong in the packaging of brltty that
>> causes 4 non-release archs to FTBFS with a recent version. It would
>> help more if a wishlist bug about that would be opened instead of an
>> unrelated bug does not get archived.
> 
> Looks like something with the java API:
> 
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=brltty&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=5.5-4&stamp=1512331748&raw=0

I have looked at the build logs, yes. I agree with you. Fixing brltty
wasn't my point though.

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-a11y-devel/attachments/20171218/843950f1/attachment.sig>