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

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 
> contributions.
> 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.

Reply to: