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

(in lieu of a) Vendor field on .debs (was practical problems with GR)

On Jun 09, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:02:57PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >    the Debian archives and public resources.  I just don't see how
> >    having a "contrib" network prevents a user from using reportbug or
> >    something similar and report a bug against a package that is not
> >    distributed by us.  Ok, that might be happening now (utah-glx comes
> There's currently no automated mechanism for figuring out which BTS 
> the report needs to be directed at and some of the automated reporting 
> tools (well, bug at any rate) don't have any support for multiple BTSs.
> I suspect the Debian BTS might still get a fair number of reports for
> non-free packages.

Yes, if we do pursue this GR we definitely need to get a vendor field
or something similar into the control files.  IIRC, such a thing is
proposed as part of the "unified package format" (whenever it comes
about), but we probably need it now, if not yesterday (I've already
seen bugs for Corel packages hit the BTS).

I could hack some intelligence into reportbug based on the maintainer
field, but that's not an ideal solution (what if someone @stormix.com
or @corel.com is a Debian maintainer, for example).  There may be a
way to figure out what repository a package came from via apt-cache,
but that is probably problematic too.  Any suggestions?


Reply to: