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

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



[snip]

> What about allowing each .deb to provide a bug reporting address?
> That'd be handy for autobugs.

This means a BTS split beyond the level at which the BTS'es shall be 
functional. Back to square one, Err... back to Redhat/rpmfind.net ;-)

	I would rather suggest keeping a list of vendors that have complied with the 
a few principles on how to maintain the stuff. If it comes from them bug goes 
to their BTS cc'ed into Debian BTS.
	If it comes from vendors off the list than dpkg should ask a question with 
appropriate priority with something like "Dependencies on this package have 
not been verified and the package is not being tracked by the Debian BTS". 
Some other verbal voodo may follow.
	And of course capability for users to add trusted vendors so that local 
packages can be maid and maintained. This will actually make maintaining them 
easier.

[snip]

Brgds,
	

P.S. Disclaimer: IANADD.

Attachment: pgpXUb1c7iGoZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: