On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > That dpkg and diffutils 2.9-1 can't work together is obvious.
> > That such fact is due to a bug in diffutils is what I'm unsure about.
> >
> > My idea was to reassign the bug back to dpkg-dev so that you can close
> > it whenever it's adapted to the new diff behaviour.
>
> I have cloned the bug, so we have two copies of the bug. One for dpkg-dev
> (#570008) and one for diffutils (#570064).
>
> You close the one in diffutils, I close the one in dpkg-dev once
> it supports the new output.
This is what I find confusing from a "formal" point of view.
Either the bug is in diffutils or it is in dpkg-dev. One of the two
have to be changed, but not both.
I've modified diffutils for the benefit of our build system, but that
does not necessarily mean that it's a bug in diffutils, it's just that
we prefer a workround now until we decide about the right fix than no
fix at all.
BTW: The BTS allows a bug to be assigned to multiple packages. I think
a reassign to "dpkg-dev,diffutils" would have worked.
Anyway, I'm keeping this bug open, as that's the one we are supposed
to forward upstream ("diffutils breaks dpkg-dev").
> [...]
> > BTW: You might want to contact upstream by using the new list
> > "bug-diffutils.gnu.org" that now exists.
>
> [email protected] you mean? is that a ML and not a bug submission
> list?
Oops, copied and pasted from the List-Id. Yes, it's with "@", and it's
a mailing list and it's publicly archived.
> Can you do it since you are the diffutils maintainer in Debian?
Ok.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
