| Steve Langasek 2005-03-19, 7:47 am |
| On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:34:26AM +0200, Pasi Savilaakso wrote:
> Kirjoitit viestissäsi (lähetysaika lauantai, 19. maaliskuuta 2005 02:53):
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> hello Martin,
> There really isn't any more to say. There is nothing else changed in package
> than new source so I don't really know what else I could say. priority High
> is since dcgui-qt is totally unusable with new libxml AND if one tries to
> start dcgui-qt with new libxml it destroys ones dcqui-qt config file. But
> again nothing changed in package. just recompile against new libxml would
> remove those unusability issues. oh, one thing I should had said was thatI
> updated man page to match new name, but I forgot it because I made it when I
> was working with 0.3.3.
Bug #289643 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version: it was
a bug report complaining about the program failing to start. "New upstream
version" has nothing to do with why this bug was closed.
Bug #269952 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version; it was
a report about broken icons.
Bug #265284 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version; it was
a request to change some strings in the interface, which were changed
upstream. But "New upstream version" is not why this bug was closed.
Bug #270096 and bug #286234 are requests for the new upstream version. So
it is appropriate to list them as such.
If you're going to use the upload bug-closing convenience feature, use it
right -- your changelog should have something relevant to say about the bug,
which is *not*, in this case, "New upstream version".
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
|