[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#174410: questionable interpretation of "install" pseudo-package

Anthony Towns wrote:
>                     given the trivial amount of code shared between
>debian-installer and boot-floppies, bugs found in one aren't relevant
>to the other in most cases.

Actually two of the three bugs that I'd reported against the "install"
package turned out to be relevant to debian-installer, much as I'd
suspected.  The bugs were essentially in the sequence of questions
that the installer asked to configure certain things, rather than in
the implementation.  See my notes on #174348 and #174360.

Colin Watson wrote:
>             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).

Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that d-i bugs should be filed against the
specific package within d-i.  I'm not really familiar with the package
system, and even after seeing d-i's rather nifty internal multi-package
structure I was still thinking of d-i as a monolithic entity, and didn't
realise that there was actually no "debian-installer" package.  I guess
I should reassign the two still-open bugs to the appropriate packages,
which I see the bug tracker does have maintainer information for.

But yes, a "debian-installer" pseudo-package seems like a good idea, as
a place to file bugs concerning the overall debian-installer mechanism,
as well as for bugs not yet localised to a particular package.


Reply to: