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

Re: Bugs against packages from BPO


* Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> [2011-06-07 17:02:50 CEST]:
> For now users of packages from BPO have to send a mail to
> debian-backports mailing-list, according to [1]. I don't know how you
> handle those bugs, but they seem very easy to miss (even if d-b@l.d.o
> isn't a high traffic list).

 This is correct.

> I was wondering if it makes sense to ask (kindly) debbugs's maintainer to
> add new special tags (e.g. “squeeze-backports”, “lenny-backports”) that
> would work exactly like “sid”, “squeeze”, … tags that we already have.

 I think you misinterpret these release tags: Setting them on a bug
means that the bug affects only that specific release. It happens though
quite regularly that bugs in backports aren't backport specific but also
affect testing/unstable, and through such an approach you would be
hiding the bugs from that view.

> It would help to have a better integration of BPO and makes
> bugreporting less confusing for users. When implemented in debbugs,
> reportbug could automatically add those tags if the package comes from
> BPO.

 The real issue with having backports bugs in the BTS is version
tracking: The BTS doesn't know about backports versions - and as long as
that is the case the BTS can't track bugs for backports. It's as simple
as that -- understanding-wise, unfortunately not coding-wise; otherwise
it would had been implemented in the meantime already.

 From what I understand help to get this fixed is more than just

> - from debbugs POV, is it feasible?

 Currently no, that's the first blocker on this road.

> - from maintainers POV, would you accept that?

 I've heard from very few people that would actually dislike it, but it
would be the right way to go in so many senses.

> - from backports FTP masters POV, do you think it's a good idea?

 I can only speak for myself (because partly I believe last time it was
brought up Alex had a different opinion on this than me), but yes, it
would be a good idea. Potentially we will manage to get a short BoF on
this topic at debconf with people from all involved parties attending to
improve this.

 But still, it needs people actually working on getting things

> If we can't agree on this proposal, can somebody tell me why we didn't try
> to have a BTS for backports?

 Because a seperate BTS doesn't make much sense, the maintenance
overhead simply isn't that benefitial when the clean solution is to get
version tracking for backports adopted into the regular BTS.

> I personally think that we could have those bugreports on bugs.d.o
> directly and that there is no need for another instance of debbugs,
> because their number isn't insane, as most of us tend to think.

 Noone is thinking about insane numbers of bugs, at least not to the
best of my knowledge. But that's not the issue. Also you might want to
dig the archives of debian-devel from september last year, subject
"Backports service becoming official", starting at

Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |

Reply to: