[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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> #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.

Pseudopackages are used as a place for bugs which have no other home.
In these cases, there is a specific home for the bug (live-boot,
live-build, live-magic, or perhaps some other package entirely).

From my perspective, it seems like one of live-boot or live-build
could be the entry point for these bugs, and then they could be
assigned to the appropriate package.

> 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.

The name seems logical, but it means that from this point forward, no
one will be able to create a package called debian-live. Because
debian-live sounds like the name of a package that the debian-live
project would want to create at some point, it isn't clear to me that
this has been properly considered.

Don Armstrong

Religion is religion, however you wrap it, and like Quell says, a
preoccupation with the next world clearly signals an inability to cope
credibly with this one.
 -- Richard K. Morgan "Broken Angels" p65

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: