Re: Bugs filed in unexpected places
Hello Andrei and all,
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:24:59 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 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.
Have you tried to hack anything yet? I've seen that Don Armstrong seens to
be open to these ideas.
I've also been roaming around http://bugs.debian.org/bugs.debian.org and
I'm also encountering the same problems you describe above.