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

Bugs filed in unexpected places

Hi all,

The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense to 
also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and not 
wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to check wnpp for RFH, 
RFA or O. Maybe having these bugs "in the face" of people interested in 
the package (i.e. on the package's bug page) can help attract 

Additionally for some packages it might make sense to remove them from 
testing and raise the severity of the O bug to serious to signal that 
the package should not be included in the next release unless someone is 
willing to commit to maintain it.

An immediate solution would probably be to 'affects <package>' so the 
bugs at least shows up on the package's bug page. Maybe the BTS 
could/should do this automatically?

One a somewhat related note, I also notice confusion is created by the 
removal bugs being filed against ftp.debian.org. When people not 
familiar with Debian are looking into why a package has been removed 
they look at the (archived) package's bugs. Not a biggie, but might help 
users or prospective ITPers (e.g. if the removal reasons still apply). 
Not sure if 'affects' can help here.

I'm guessing the current procedures were created because at the time the 
BTS did not have the 'affects <package>' feature.

Kind regards,
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: