On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:40:18PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 02:33:04PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Hi, this bug is invalid. > > Uhm, no?
Actually, yes. Uninstallable packages can exist in unstable until they are either fixed or removed. It's not really necessary to file these bugs since these are already part of known transitions. https://packages.qa.debian.org/q/qtcreator.html https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/qtbase-abi-5-5-1.html > > 3.5.0+dfsg-2+b1 > > Rebuild against qtbase-abi-5-5-1. > > If so, the binNMU fixes this bug (and should nominally have a Closes: line > with the bug number, except the bug was probably filed after the binNMU was > scheduled). Thank you for taking care of that. No, binNMUs do not change the package source. There is no changelog entry. > In particular, having a bug in the BTS will enable users to see that the > issue is on its way to being fixed (or not, for some architectures, as you > mention). :-) This is of no use to anyone. As I wrote above, these things are already tracked outside BTS. Sid can have uninstallable packages - that is normal. If you prefer to have more consistent set of packages, please use testing distribution instead. Few weeks ago there was a quite large stdlibc++ transition affecting hundreds of packages. No bugs were filed because of missing g++ 5 symbols (unless packages needed manual modification to complete transition, and these were filed months in advance). Cheers, - Adam -- Adam Majer ad...@zombino.com
