Re: Bug#775797: bugs.debian.org: BTS doesn't know about BPO versions; breaks apt-listbugs
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:17:33AM -0500, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> As you know, bugs.debian.org doesn't eat the backport changelogs, so
> it has no idea about what bugs might be present in any given BPO
> version of a package. Even when those bugs are merely inherited from
> the backported version of the package.
>
> Consequently, apt-listbugs will, at best, be able to find out about
> bugs in backports if they were reported as found in that exact
> backport version of the package -- which, if the reporter followed the
> backports documentation, wouldn't even exist.
>
> It would be nice if you could process those changelogs, even if only
> for apt-listbugs' benefit.
I heard a second-hand report today that this was deliberately not being
done on the grounds that some package maintainers don't want bugs
against backports to be filed in the BTS. I found the link to version
tracking in particular to be surprising, and I want to check that there
isn't a degree of "telephone game" happening here.
My intent in sending this email isn't to rehash that particular
argument, which I know has gone back and forward a fair bit. There's a
separate bug (https://bugs.debian.org/897934) for some of the problems
that would perhaps make it more palatable for backports bugs to be
handled in the BTS.
However, leaving that aside: is there any reason for that debate to
block BTS tracking of backports versions in particular? Samuel makes a
good argument here that this would be useful from the point of view of
users of backports, and I can well imagine that it would also be helpful
for package maintainers who also maintain the corresponding backports.
I find it improbable that simply fleshing out the version graph a bit
more would result in a significant increase of bug reports against
backports.
If I were a more active BTS admin then TBH I'd be inclined to just do
this, but since I'm pretty inactive I thought it best to ask around.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: