[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Bug#796711: Bug#796711: sword: library transition is needed with GCC 5 as default

[Simon McVittie]

On 04/09/15 15:52, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:48:45PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Vaguely related to this, a ftp team member noted that there are open
>> RM bugs for bibledit-gtk and xiphos, which seem to be in the same
>> general area (bible study), and might get processed soon. If these
>> are of interest to you, please reply to the removal bugs and either
>> say "yes, this should be removed from unstable", or say what the plan
>> is for fixing the issues that led to the bug.
> 
> I haven't worked out who I should contact yet

https://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org

and more specifically

https://bugs.debian.org/797564
https://bugs.debian.org/797568

which I see you have contacted already. That was the right thing to do.

> I uploaded the source as well by mistake with bibledit-gtk_4.8-2.

All uploads of new versions to Debian need source code; it's kind of the
point :-)

Redundantly uploading the orig.tar.gz even though it is in the archive
already (due to using e.g. debuild -sa) is harmless, apart from wasting
a bit of bandwidth.

> After I realised that I made some more changes 
> and uploaded bibledit-gtk_4.8-3 binary only

Binary-only uploads of a version whose source is not in the archive
would be rejected. Do you mean "diff only"?

> which was to close the removal bug

Closing removal bugs (and other bugs in pseudo-packages) via packages'
changelogs doesn't seem right in any case. If a removal request seems
wrong, send mail to its bug address explaining why it shouldn't be
removed, as you already did; and if you're really sure your reasons are
good, close it by using the -done address (but there's no need to do
that for those two removal bugs, because Scott already did).

    S