Re: Mass bug filing: init script "status" action
Dustin Kirkland <email@example.com> writes:
> Bug #208010 suggests LSB-compliance of all init scripts in Debian .
> And Bug #291148 suggests a debian-policy change requiring 'status'
> actions for all init scripts .
Just to say explicitly, these aren't reasons for mass-filing bugs. These
are unadopted Policy proposals and hence have no authority or weight.
However, if your goal is to unblock those proposals, getting the archive
to convert over is the best next step. Then the Policy proposal can go
through without making lots of packages instantly buggy.
> In Ubuntu, we have undertaken an effort to patch as many such init
> scripts as possible . In most of these cases, we would like to
> contribute this functionality back to the Debian package. I believe
> this flow of bugs and patches would qualify as a 'mass bug filing' .
> So far, we filed a few bugs before it was suggested that we propose this
> on the debian-devel mailing list:
> * 492126, 492131, 492138, 492541, 492625
> Is it ok to continue filing these requests as wishlist bugs, or is
> another approach preferred?
I think it's reasonable to file a wishlist bug with a patch to every
package that you've modified in this fashion since you're also providing
tested custom patches for each package.
Mass-filing bugs *without* patches, though, I don't think is a good
approach, since you'd be filing bugs against nearly every package with an
init script in Debian. A better first approach is to add a Lintian check
for missing status support if there's a general consensus that adding
status support is a good idea. (Personally, I'm all in favor of it; it
will allow Debian to support configuration management systems such as
Puppet more effectively.)
I think the combination of a Lintian check plus filing wishlist bugs with
patches for each init script where you've tested the modifications is a
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>