Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2
[Please wrap your lines at <80 characters.]
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:59:13PM -0400, paul wrote:
> > The question is that there is more than one way to follow a standard when
> > alleviating a problem. And this is the case when a common BTS becomes a very
> > good thing (TM).
>
> I wonder how the Debian based dists (Corel, Storm, etc.) handle this. If
> there is enough interest among the comercial Debian based dists, then it
> is possible that a distributed BTS could be developed to track bugs in
> debs from many different sources. With a strict bug reporting format,
> such a tool could could determine if a bug is dist specific or common to
> all participating dists.
You could determine automatically if a bug is distroX-specific for some
packages, but you couldn't do that automatically for packages of the same
name and same version. There should be quite a few packages like that in
distributions based on Debian, since to add functionality to Debian they
probably didn't have to recompile, increase the revision or rename each of
our packages.
It would be cool if someone enhanced our BTS to be able to send over bug
reports to another BTS of the same type, e.g. by sending stuff like "distro
435675 Debian" to control@bugs.stormix.com, and then debbugs BTS on
bugs.stormix.com would bounce that report (#435675) to the debbugs BTS on
bugs.debian.org, somehow (scp report's files? just submit the whole report
to submit@bugs.d.o?).
> The long term implications of the GR are unknown, but not necessarily
> negative.
Yeah, but should we really try to explore that route just because it's
`a good idea', and ditch the existing practice that we know is positive in
very many aspects?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: