Itai Zukerman <zukerman@math-hat.com> writes: > So a sysadmin can manually change some entries and have those entries > stick on upgrade. Ok. > For example, from: > > Bug-Submit-To: submit@bugs.debian.org > > to: > > Bug-Submit-To: quiet@bugs.debian.org This is a bad example, IMHO. I still maintain that the Bug-Submit-To field - whether it resides on the packages itself or in an origin conffile - should NOT include submit@ for the debbugs style of bug reporting. The bug reporter should be able to choose if she wants to report quiet, maintonly, etc. So for debbugs reporting, BST should just contain a hostname. Other Bug-Submit-Style:s have other reqirements (maintainer needs a full mail address). > Yes, unless origin-debian is in base, I think packages with Origin: > Debian *should* recommend origin-debian. I see this kind of > dependency: > > Package: foo > Origin: Debian > Recommends: origin-debian > > Package: origin-debian > Depends: origin-base > Suggests: bug | reportbug One would have to work hard to keep origin-debian from a system when using dinstall (it will come up on install of *every* new package). I think we should either leave that at a Suggests at maximum, or just declare it essential (the package shouldn't be bigger than 4k, anyway). > (The Suggests could be in origin-base, but what if different > distributions have different bug-submission software?) Use a virtual package "bug-reporting-tool". Hmm, perhaps "origin-debian" should be renamed to "bug-reporting-debian"? > Of course, this isn't mandatory. If origin-helix isn't installed then > the bug submission software may simply fail, noting that it doesn't > know how/where to send bug reports. If we mandated that "Origin: foo" will always be defined by a package origin-foo, the bug tools could suggest that origin-helix had to be installed, or even try to install it themselves (when allowed). -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature