On 16/05/13 at 23:02 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Jo, 16 mai 13, 20:24:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 16/05/13 at 19:48 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > As you might have noticed today I made myself busy doing some bug triage > > > from the 'unknown-package' bug list[1] > > > > > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint= > > > > > > I couldn't help noticing there are quite a few new bugs filed against > > > wrong/inexistent packages and should probably be dealt with as they are > > > filed (reassigned to the correct package or closed as appropriate). > > > > > > Would it make sense for such bugs to be forwarded to -qa so that more > > > people can look at them? > > > > > > As far as I know they currently go to unknown-package@qa.d.o but I have > > > no idea how many persons are behind that alias and I see no reason for > > > this to be handled by a private alias. > > > > Hi Andrei, > > > > I also see no reason to significantly increase the traffic on -qa@. :) > > Would you know how many mails that is? No idea, but I don't see the point of sending them all to -qa either :) > > Currently, we have: > > unknown-package: cjwatson, aliceinwire@gnumerica.org > > CCed. > > > If you are interested in working on that, could you reach out to them > > and see if they need help? > > Yes, I'm interested. Feel free to add me to the alias if there are no > objections from your side. > > > There's also a UDD CGI that lists bugs filed against unknown packages: > > http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugs-removed-packages.cgi > > This lists quite a lot more bugs than the BTS URL above. I wonder where > the difference is coming from... The UDD list considers that "unknown package" = "package not in (squeeze, wheezy, jessie, sid, experimental)" The BTS list might use "not in any past release" (or just include lenny) Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature