On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 06:44:37PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:32:30AM +0100, Bluefuture wrote: > > > > > I'm not a debian developer, so i could not post on dda mailing list. I > > > had opened many thread over this months on debian-qa debian-devel about > > > dehs issues. The only reply are: > > > > > > 1) Dehs is useless. > > > 2) Submitting 6229 wishlist bug is not possible/is not the solution > > > (without proposing alternatives method) > > > > > > I had try to randomly submit wishlist bugs for 6 packages to bts with > > > the tag "patch" pointing to the dehs site or attaching the watch file to > > > the bug. > > > Almost all of this bug was closed and the watch file was check (in some > > > cases fixed) and inserted in the package on the next upload. > > > > So, you got the way to go. Please go ahead and submit those 6229 bugs. > > NO! > > Do *not* file 6229 bugs about the same subject. Never. > > Adding a watchfile is up to the maintainer. It's a feature offered to > maintainers, they can use it if the wish. If a watchfile for a package > makes sense (for quite some packages it doesn't) I think it's useful. > In no case should 6229 bugs be filed about these watchfiles that don't > have ANY effect on the resulting binary packages. Erm. You did cut what I said, ie, that if someone wants to write the few thousands missing watch files and provide them as wishlist bug, I'd say that they should proceed. People not wanting of those watch files can always mark the bug wontfix if it's a political opinion, or close the bug if it does not make any sense in their case. Of course, mass bug filling saying "please do the job I'd like to see done" is never a solution. That's not what I proposed. That's not what we did for the po-debconf transition. And hoping that maintainers are perfect and will write everybit of the needed infrastructure alone is a dream. I welcome any transversal help offer. That's QA job, and that's good, IMHO. Thanks, Mt.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature