Control: -1 reopen

Hi Chris,

Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:

Upstream claims in https://gitlab.bacula.org/bacula-community-edition/bacula-community/-/issues/2248
that this problem is gone.

If the problem reappears, please reopen the bug and also reopen the
upstream bug (or file a new one).
"Debian Bug Tracking System" <[email protected]> writes:

thanks for triaging bugs. If you (or someone else) want(s) to help with
this bug, please confirm it's status by following the steps to reproduce
it.

At the time upstream closed the bug, I considered it to be very unlikely
that it's fixed, because there were no changes to bat between 9.0.7 and
9.0.8 and we were using a newer version of QT than upstream (4.8
vs. 5.10.1). See the upstream bug for context. Therefore I consider that
the bug is still there until confirmed otherwise.

Regards,

Carsten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello Carsten,

thank you for the feedback.

On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 09:11:13AM +0200, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:

At the time upstream closed the bug, I considered it to be very unlikely
that it's fixed, because there were no changes to bat between 9.0.7 and
9.0.8 and we were using a newer version of QT than upstream (4.8
vs. 5.10.1). See the upstream bug for context. Therefore I consider that
the bug is still there until confirmed otherwise.

With this explanation I would suggest removing the "forwarded"
status, as at least I understand it to mean: upstream was informed
about the bug and will hopefully do something about it.
Given upstream closed it, I find this unlikely, and as you said,
action on the Debian-side is needed.

Chris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Chris,

Chris Hofstaedtler <[email protected]> writes:

On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 09:11:13AM +0200, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:

At the time upstream closed the bug, I considered it to be very unlikely
that it's fixed, because there were no changes to bat between 9.0.7 and
9.0.8 and we were using a newer version of QT than upstream (4.8
vs. 5.10.1). See the upstream bug for context. Therefore I consider that
the bug is still there until confirmed otherwise.

With this explanation I would suggest removing the "forwarded"
status, as at least I understand it to mean: upstream was informed
about the bug and will hopefully do something about it.
Given upstream closed it, I find this unlikely, and as you said,
action on the Debian-side is needed.

if we remove the forwarded status, information about the corresponding
upstream bug will be less readily available. I think we now have enough
context in the debian bug so that readers can understand the current
status.

Regards

Carsten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)