>From the debian/changelog entry for glibc 2.2-7:
* Checking printf returns is left to the programmer, closes: #28250
* Ok, the 51 pages of flaming in tis bug report leads me to believe that
this will never be resolved in glibc. IMO, it is up to the programmer
to be smart enough to check these things (where it matters). I am
closing this bug report on the precedence that it is not really a bug
because current functionality meets specs (and this bug report would
break that compatibility). This entire bug report should be archived
all on it's own. Hell, it should have it's own BTS just to track the
conversation. closes: #28251
This caused the BTS to send a message to me saying:
[The bug] has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. [...]
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
glibc, which has been installed in the Debian FTP archive: [...]
This is a lie, of course - we do not believe that the bug `is fixed in
the latest version of glibc'. Nothing has been changed in the libc.
I don't think that using the changelog bug-closing mechanism is
appropriate for when a bug is closed with no change to the code.
James (you're still [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Ben, do you agree ?
If James agrees it might be helpful to put a note in some of the BTS
or changelog documentation about this (and I'll suggest it in a new
bug report against the appropriate package or pseudo-package if you
and others agree).
So, that's the procedural matter dealt with - but it doesn't explain
why I've reopened the bugs. If you bear with me, I'll now write a
response with some technical content explaining that ...
Thanks,
Ian.
