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: