From: jamessan@debian.org   
      
   On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 12:06:36AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:   
   >On Sun, Feb 08, 2026 at 05:29:02PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:   
   >   
   >> Just because something shows the same symptom, does not mean it is the   
   >> same root cause. Rather than unarchiving and marking old bugs as   
   >> "fixed", it would have been better, IMO, to file new bugs.   
   >   
   >BTW: I'm not reporting "root causes", I'm reporting the fact   
   >that the package does not build source after a binary build.   
      
   I didn't say you're reporting the root cause, but re-opening the same   
   bug implies that it is the same root cause.   
      
   >I'm having difficulty to understand why some people seem to be upset   
   >about this.   
      
   Separate issues should be handled by separate bugs. I'm not expecting   
   you to determine if the root cause is the same. That's for me to do and   
   and, if so, merge the new bug into the existing one.   
      
   >If a package written in C FTBFS with gcc-15, and it has foo.c and   
   >bar.c, both of which requiring a fix, and the maintainer fixes foo.c   
   >only (as only foo.c appears in the build log) would you say that it's   
   >wrong to reopen because now it fails for a "different" reason? (bar.c)   
      
   Yes.   
      
   >BTW: I'm building subversion by adding this single file to debian/clean   
   >   
   >subversion/tests/cmdline/.davautocheck.sh.stop   
      
   I'm seeing a failure completely unrelated to that, so I doubt it will   
   be enough.   
      
   Cheers,   
   --   
   James (he/him)   
   GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7  2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)