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

Bug#544192: Building a case for the need for a debian-live pseudopackage


#612330 and #612359 provide more evidence a pseudopackage to collect
such reports is needed. Please note, Don, that after triaging, these
have been reassigned to the packages that need to be fixed, so it is
hard to do as you have asked, and give a list of bugs that would be
assigned today to this pseudopackage. But historically, we have had a
number of such bugs.

The pseudopackage would serve as an entry point to collect reports from
end users against official Debian live images, which could cover a whole
host of possible problems, from the boot loader, to the installer, to
the kernel and X, or as is sometimes the case, to a component that we

As for the psuedopackage name, since debian-live is the project that
produces the live images, it is logical that debian-live should be the
name of the pseudopackage to collect reports about problems with them.
It is so logical, in fact, that it is assumed by some to be there already:


As for a sentence to describe the pseudopackage, I'm not entirely happy
with "General problems on live systems" which sounds a bit broad to me,
and would propose instead:

"User reports for official Debian Live images."

We want to encourage users if they have a problem with a self-built or
third-party-built image to try to reproduce it on the official images,
otherwise what we may be debugging is the image creator's configuration,
not any package in Debian. (Inevitably, some users will file such bugs
here anyway, but at least by describing the pseudopackage this way, we
steer them in the right direction.)


Reply to: