Re: What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages
On Sat, 19 May 2012, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The BTS could then not just track the binary/source package of a bug
> but also the meta-source package. That way when gcc-4.4 is removed
> from the archive the bugs can still be associated with the gcc-x.y
> meta package and won't be completly lost. The gcc maintainers would
> still be listed as repsonsible for the bug.
What may be the appropriate solution is to allow for meta-source
packages to be specified at the BTS level instead. That is, I (or
someone else with an owner@ hat) can just alias source packages to
other source packages, so that they all appear to be the same source
package. [Possibly also allowing for aliased binary packages as well,
with aliases being overridden if there is a currently existing binary
or source package with that name.]
We can generate a list fairly automatically by parsing the changelog
history looking for cases where a new source package name follows a
previous source package name.
Don Armstrong
--
This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure.
-- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: