Re: Bug#174410: questionable interpretation of "install" pseudo-package
* Colin Watson
| Which is why I'm suggesting they be segregated - sorry, I wasn't very
| clear above. However, there does need to be a designated place for
| people to file d-i bugs (if they don't know what udeb is at fault, as
| they probably won't for the most part). Zefram reassigned a bunch of
| bugs to 'debian-installer' today, which doesn't exist. If it should, and
| install/installation/installation-reports/upgrade-reports aren't
| adequate for whatever reason, somebody (Tollef?) needs to request it.
«install» is the correct package for d-i bugs, boot-floppies for
boot-floppies bugs.
| > > Would your request be satisfied if any bugs against install/installation
| > > regarding boot-floppies were reassigned to the package of that name, and
| > > the boot-floppies developers agree not to brush off bugs filed there
| > > with "won't happen in boot-floppies" (and to reassign bugs to
| > > install/installation as appropriate)?
| >
| > Honestly, I don't think the boot-floppies guys will or should agree to
| > that. The priority for d-i is still to make things work roughly as well as
| > b-f's, not to make sure random annoyances from b-f's don't show up again.
|
| Sure; but there are plenty of wishlists that have been explicitly left
| around as ideas for future installation system developers. To quote Adam
| di Carlo in e.g. #64570:
I'm planning on stealing a bunch of the wontfix, wishlist bugs from
boot-floppies, since they are really meant to be against the
installation system and not a specific implementation of it.
--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to: