Bastian Venthur wrote: > On 18.12.2007 03:47 schrieb David Nusinow: >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:47:39AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: >>> Why was I opposed to implement this. >>> >>> 3. I'm definitely opposed to a feature which will pop up a *terminal* >>> where a user has to do something before he can proceed reporting a bug. Then reportbug-ng simply must provide a GUI window where precisely the same questions are asked with the same prompts and the same output. This is the one reason why I do not use reportbug-ng for the majority of my bugs. (An issue with reportbug and usertags is the reason why I would use reportbug-ng). I don't care how it is implemented - I *do* care that the implementation precisely and exactly matches how reportbug would output the question, obtain the data to answer the question and format that data in the final bug report email. Personally, I see nothing wrong with embedding a fully functional terminal in the data-gathering window of reportbug-ng. > Sounds all very good to me, but I still doubt that there are actually > cases where it is really important for the majority of bugreports that > the user has to answer a specific question. I don't want to sound > ignorant (although I guess I already do...), but please show me a few > packages to convince me. Well, for my own needs, emdebian-tools and apt-cross. Every bug report against apt-cross would have benefited from getting answers to the questions that are now deployed in the bug script (that is why the questions are in the bug script). It is vital to me that the user provides the full apt sources list (including sources in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*) because problems with apt-cross are (or certainly were until dpkg-cross 2.0.0) nearly always related to the particular sources used to generate the cache. Similarly with emdebian-tools, bug reports make absolutely no sense unless I get sources data and debconf data. >>> 4. I was *personally* very annoyed by some of the reactions on this >>> bugreport. Since we're all volunteers and stuff and this feature is >>> maybe a nice-to-have but definitely not a must-have, I decided to put >>> this issue very low on my to do list. I think it should be near the top of the list. My time is important too. :-) It is a must-have for me - I cannot use reportbug-ng for the majority of my bug reports because of this failure. >>> However, I agree that the stuff in /usr/share/bug isn't completely >>> useless. The opposite is true, it makes the life of maintainers easier >>> and rng should make use of it where possible. Absolutely. > That is probably true, but I don't want a *terminal* popping up asking > for questions in my (or any other) *GUI* application. Especially since > I'm currently not really convinced that those questions are really > necessary. The questions are necessary. As for terminals, other GUI's do bring up a terminal window and I would actually like a lot more GUI applications to be able to offer a "Bring up a terminal in the same directory as the current file" option. Think of applications like geany, anjuta, gedit, kate (probably) - these even embed a terminal within the GUI. These are the kind of programs that developers are using to file and test bugs in packages. It's only sensible to do the same in the report bug tool. >>> And please, don't use abusive language or even insults when contacting >>> me about this issue. My rng-time is currently very limited and my >>> motivation to work especially on this issue is already very low. Maybe seek a co-maintainer? >>> We're >>> speaking here about a fully optional feature. Providing the output of >>> some scripts or having to read a presubj is helpful, but *not* mandatory >>> when reporting a bug. So please, Be nice! I wholeheartedly disagree. The script output is 90% of the solution of the bug report for the packages in which I use bug scripts. > Again, I am not so much opposed to the bugscripts output (anymore), but > I really don't want a terminal popping up which even starts to ask the > user questions. Before we discuss this specific problem any further, > could someone please name a few packages where the script prompts the > user for questions? $ ls /usr/share/bug 106 directories on my system - a lot are tex based. My own are: dpkg-cross, apt-cross, emdebian-tools, libcache-apt-perl. Other important ones (IMHO) are: galeon, grub, locales, initramfs-tools, linux-image*, apt, cupsys, udev and probably totem and vim. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature