Bug#544192: Building a case for the need for a debian-live pseudopackage
On 08/02/11 05:13 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 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).
I was thinking of something along the lines of installation-reports.
> 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.
Since live systems are complex products of these packages and are not
these packages themselves, I still don't see what distinguishes this
from the case of installation-reports. It is the live system itself that
breaks when someone reports a bug. Aren't those reports used as an entry
point and then sometimes the bug is reassigned elsewhere? Or is a new,
separate bug filed when they find the root cause?
> 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.
I see. Well, imagination fails me right now (somehow "live-reports"
seems not quite right, either, not without a formal reporting mechanism
that would collect and summarize some useful information as
installation-reports has) but we'll think about it.