Re: Bugs filed in unexpected places
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> 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 contributions.
it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
The current maintainer is looking for someone who can take over
maintenance of this package. If you are interested in this package,
please consider taking it over. Alternatively you may want to be
co-maintainer in order to help the actual maintainer. Please see bug
number #532093 for more information."
I don't see a reason to move it away from wnpp: its great to have a
central place for that information, but I agree it is useful to have
the info forwarded to other places (such as the PTS, and perhaps the
package's own bug page).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----