Re: Bug Reporting system
James Troup wrote:
> Goswin Brederlow <email@example.com> writes:
> [ Please don't Cc: me on messages going to debian.devel ]
> > > > > > My proposal is to add an architecture field to the
> > > > > > maintainer and having one maintainer for each architecture.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > We have ~6 active (pushing it) maintainers for m68k, other
> > > non-i386 architectures have a similar number *or less*, just how
> > > many packages do you expect to have "architecture maintainers"
> > > for? I say again, it's not workable.
> > There was a list with maintainers of m68k stuff lately. Something of
> > 20-30 packages.
> No. No. No. Your ability, to _not_ read what stuff actually says but
> to simply read what you want to see, is astonishing.
> That list was over a year old and of the people on that list (of 5
> maintainers), only one is at all active at the moment and he accounts
> for two (2) of the 68 packages (how did you get 20-30?) listed.
I didn't say 20-30 maintainer, I said 20-30 Packages. Thats a big
> So, you want people to go to the hassle of adapting the bug tracking
> system and dpkg-* to support architecture-specific maintainers for
> 20-30 packages (your flawed estimate), which is what? 2% of the
> Packages (real figure == .2%)? It's not worth it.
May be it's not worth now, but there will be more maintainers and more
bugs. Maybe having multiple maintainers isn't the right thing, but
somehow bugreports should be send to the right list, i.e. debian-arch.
I sugested having multiple maintainers for the archs, which might not be
worth for 0.2%. Maybe adding an archi field to the bugreports is worth
it then? Can we come to terms on that?
Maybe we could make a list of people supporting packages on different
architectures. So newbies can look up whom to mail if they have problems
with a package. Say they have a problem with the bootdisk for atari, the
look at the list and see Michaels email behind it. The list would be
short (it's only a few packages that need and have maintainer from
different architectures) and wouldn't change for long times. It could
probably be handeled manually (It's probably enough if each maintainer
uploading a new package puts himself into the list).
Would that be workable?
> > The i386 maintainer wouldn't be bothered by some bugs of other
> > architectures (like xpaste m68k depending on X11R6 which is
> > obsolete). How could I report a bug like xpaste at the moment?
> The way you did, by asking on debian.m68k for someone to recompile it.
But thats what the Bugtracking system is for.
May the source be with you.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .