[Pkg-phototools-devel] Bug#761357: Bug#761355: closed by Mathieu Malaterre <malat at debian.org> ()

[Kan-Ru Chen (=?UTF-8?Q?=E9=99=B3=E4=BE=83=E5=A6=82?=)]

Ralf Treinen <treinen at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> writes:

> Hello,
>
> thanks for having investigated that.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:31:04PM +0800, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote:
>> Ralf Treinen <treinen at debian.org> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 07:18:12AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> >
>> >> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:15:46 +0200
>> >> From: Mathieu Malaterre <malat at debian.org>
>> >> To: 761355-done at bugs.debian.org
>> >> Subject: 
>> >> 
>> >> Control: tags -1 wontfix
>> >> 
>> >> libopenjpeg6-dev never reached testing. closing as wontfix.
>> >
>> > That is not a reason to close a bug while it remains unfixed. Policy
>> > applies to sid as well as to testing or stable. The same holds
>> > of course for #761356 and #761357.
>> 
>> It looks like libopenjpeg6 doesn't exist anymore. It is still in the
>> archive but the source package (openjpeg2) only builds libopenjp2-7. The
>> only rdepends of libopenjpeg6 is leptonlib which still build-depends on
>> libopenjpeg6-dev. leptonlib could be simply rebuilt against
>> libopenjp2-7-dev.
>
> OK. In that case one should simply reassign the bug reports to
> the packages coming from the old version of openjpeg2 (I just 
> did that).
>
>> I think after leptonlib is fixed we should RM libopenjpe6 and friends
>> then mark these bugs as fixed.
>
> No need to do that, the binary packages that are no longer generated
> from the source package will be removed automatically when noone 
> depends on them any longer.

How often do that happen? Even if the packages have inter-dependencies?

> I guess this also means that #762684 can be closed ?

Yes!