On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:19:25 +0100 Sune Vuorela <Sune@vuorela.dk> wrote: > On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Neil Williams wrote: > > > Well, for my own needs, emdebian-tools and apt-cross. Every bug report > > against apt-cross would have benefited from getting answers to the > > questions that are now deployed in the bug script (that is why the > > questions are in the bug script). It is vital to me that the user > > provides the full apt sources list (including sources in > > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*) because problems with apt-cross are (or > > certainly were until dpkg-cross 2.0.0) nearly always related to the > > particular sources used to generate the cache. Similarly with > > emdebian-tools, bug reports make absolutely no sense unless I get > > sources data and debconf data. > > I have read quite some bug scripts today. I am kind of wondering (maybe jsut > my imagination being limited) why you aren't just unconditionally including > those data instead of having a interactive bug script? I think it is only polite to ask before including a sources list into a public bug report that identifies the email address of the reporter - who knows what unofficial repos are out there. The script does remind the user that any content can be edited before sending the report. I'm looking for patterns and URL constructs that trip up particular regular expressions (or I was until the latest changes which appear to have resolved the underlying problem). I think it is worthwhile continuing to ask for such data so that I can accurately test with official and non-official repositories. If the source works for apt, it should work for apt-cross but as apt-cross is perl and apt is C++, that can only be continually retested, not guaranteed. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpa2ALDNcXPg.pgp
Description: PGP signature