Re: Getting good bug reports
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Brian May writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
>> [ explanation of how reportbug is broken right now ]
>
> We could solve this if we can avoid the slippery slope problem.
>
> Or to put it another way, I would have no objection to an http
> submission interface to the BTS, provided that everyone understands
> and agrees that:
>
> * This interface is to be used only by reportbug
>
> * If any other bug reporting tool is written it needs separate
> consensus approval here (consensus as determined by owner@bugs)
>
> * Specifically, no-one is to write any web forms or GUIs which allow
> users to file bug reports in the Debian BTS.
>
> Ie, we're purely fixing the deficiencies of reportbug.
>
>
> On a technical level, I would suggest that the submission interface
> should contain a submission agent and version string which reportbug
> should set to its own package name and version. This string should
> not be checked by default by the submission server but there should be
> provision for an administratively applied blacklist.
>
> Then if someone (Nabble?) does violate our expectations, we'll be able
> to block them (by releasing a new version of reportbug, if the
> miscreants hijack our version string).
>
> Obviously the return from the submission interface wouldn't be an HTML
> page. It would be a success indication, or a plain text error
> message.
>
> Ian.
So everyone is allowed to write a frontend to report bugs via smtp. But
only reportbug is allowed to use http? That seems a bit stupid. Any tool
generating valid mails to bugs.debian.org should also be allowed to send
them via http. Specifically I would like the "bts" command to work over
http too if reportbug does.
Why not just make it an smtp-over-http tunnel with the clear limit of
only accepting mail to bug.debian.org. I mean the problem is ISPs that
don't allow an smtp connect to bugs.d.o so lets circumvent that
limitation by using http underneath.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: