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

Bug#988391: marked as done (reportbug: X-Debbugs-CC problems)

Your message dated Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:19:30 +0000
with message-id <E1mJ6rS-0004Z5-Up@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#988391: fixed in reportbug 11.0.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #988391,
regarding reportbug: X-Debbugs-CC problems
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
988391: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=988391
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: reportbug
Version: 7.10.3
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org

Dear Maintainer,

   * What led up to the situation?
   <terminal>
   ross@debtest:~$ reportbug logcheck-database -H 'X-Debbugs-CC: 987839@bugs.debian.org'
*** Warning: Your ~/.reportbugrc is setting an X-Debbugs-CC header in a 'header' command. This is an old default setting that no longer works reliably. You may
want to re-run 'reportbug --configure', or edit your configuration file to use the 'list-cc-me' command (without recipient address) instead.
*** Welcome to reportbug.  Use ? for help at prompts. ***
    </terminal>
    
    Then when the editor spawned I did not see X-Debbugs-CC in the
    file, although I do see it for this bug, which used --list-cc-me. 

    Read documentation and got confused abut how different ways of
    specifying X-Debbugs-CC interacted. 
    
   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?
     I ignored the warning and filed the report without being able to
     add myself to the X-Debbugs-CC list. 
     
   * What was the outcome of this action?
   Bug submitted and the message was cc'd to me (before getting a bug
   # assigned).  The cc surprised me, but I presume it's the result of
   /etc/reportbug.conf having a cc directive.
   
   * What outcome did you expect instead?
   1. That the error message would be accurate.  It said
   *** Warning: Your ~/.reportbugrc is setting an X-Debbugs-CC header in a 'header' command. .....
   My .reportbugrc has no header or debbugs-cc related directives.  I
   assume the warning was triggered by the -H option on the command
   line.
   Also, the warning message went on to suggest --list-cc-me,
   which was not appropriate since the edress I gave was not me.
   
   2. That there would be some way to edit my X-Debbugs-CC list after
   the fact.  I realized after I started that I wanted to include
   myself in list, and had no way to do it (unless I overlooked an
   X-Debbugs-CC line in the editor).  I could have added such a line
   in the editor, but it was unclear how that would interact with the
   previous request from the command line.
   Related: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=648185

   3. That I would be able to figure out how different header-related
   options interacted from t he documentation.


In general, there are multiple ways to set the X-Debbugs-CC list, and
it is unclear how they interact.  For example, what if I have
list-cc-me and an explicit X-Debbugs-CC header?  If there are several
such headers, what happens?

https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting#pseudoheader says
If you want to send copies to more than one address, add them
comma-separated in only one X-Debbugs-CC line.

<aside>
Oops, I guess I shouldn't have done an X-Debbugs-CC to another bug,
because it continues

Avoid sending such copies to the addresses of other bug
reports, as they will be caught by the checks that prevent mail
loops. There is relatively little point in using X-Debbugs-CC for this
anyway, as the bug number added by that mechanism will just be
replaced by a new one; use an ordinary CC header instead.
</aside>

The man page has both -P and -H.  What's the difference?  How do they
interact with -list-cc or --list-cc-me, or options set in
configuration files?

-H describes how to set X-Debbugs-CC, but
--list-cc=ADDRESS  
 Send a carbon copy of the report to the specified list after a report
 number is assigned; this is the equivalent to the option -P
 'X-Debbugs-CC: ADDRESS'. This option will only work as intended with
 debbugs systems.

uses -P instead.


-- Package-specific info:
** Environment settings:
INTERFACE="text"

** /home/ross/.reportbugrc:
reportbug_version "7.10.3"
mode standard
ui text
email "RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org"
smtphost "mail.betterworld.us"

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing-security
  APT policy: (500, 'testing-security'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-6-amd64 (SMP w/3 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages reportbug depends on:
ii  apt                2.2.3
ii  python3            3.9.2-3
ii  python3-reportbug  7.10.3
ii  sensible-utils     0.0.14

reportbug recommends no packages.

Versions of packages reportbug suggests:
pn  claws-mail                                 <none>
pn  debconf-utils                              <none>
ii  debsums                                    3.0.2
pn  dlocate                                    <none>
ii  emacs-bin-common                           1:27.1+1-3.1
ii  exim4-daemon-light [mail-transport-agent]  4.94-17
ii  file                                       1:5.39-3
ii  gnupg                                      2.2.27-2
pn  python3-urwid                              <none>
pn  reportbug-gtk                              <none>
ii  xdg-utils                                  1.1.3-4.1

Versions of packages python3-reportbug depends on:
ii  apt                2.2.3
ii  file               1:5.39-3
ii  python3            3.9.2-3
ii  python3-apt        2.2.0
ii  python3-debian     0.1.39
ii  python3-debianbts  3.1.0
ii  python3-requests   2.25.1+dfsg-2
ii  sensible-utils     0.0.14

python3-reportbug suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: reportbug
Source-Version: 11.0.0
Done: Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
reportbug, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 988391@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> (supplier of updated reportbug package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 23:54:19 -0400
Source: reportbug
Architecture: source
Version: 11.0.0
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Reportbug Maintainers <debian-reportbug@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>
Closes: 988391 990267 992332
Changes:
 reportbug (11.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   [ Thomas Goirand ]
   * Update suite names vs stable/oldstable, so it's possible to request for
     bullseye-pu (Closes: #992332).
 .
   [ Nis Martensen ]
   * man/reportbug.1: advise -H users to use --list-cc (Closes: #988391)
 .
   [ Sandro Tosi ]
   * Release reportbug 11, matching Debian Bullseye release number
   * debian/control
     - run wrap-and-sort
     - switch Suggests to debconf, since we're using the binary debconf-show,
       included in that package; Closes: #990267
Checksums-Sha1:
 edd993669a75f97640549a9a1a4f23ad324e79e5 1888 reportbug_11.0.0.dsc
 b313f98e8657322e3001b69e62a4523f2c4a2429 232184 reportbug_11.0.0.tar.xz
 44b70a2c0bb2e0b42b6e01ed202fbd0af2ef48c7 6362 reportbug_11.0.0_source.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 3da5ce47383a7d320de52b77ce8195ef57b878d21ba90b43903c91fe80672be3 1888 reportbug_11.0.0.dsc
 343ac4379df75ebf5336fbef9fd9d2f2c32c5ba2dbd6b65452d6184de21bfc5c 232184 reportbug_11.0.0.tar.xz
 d7d4162340655b602c8739c354b0a521864c0c541cd00eeb80e7bd636ff16340 6362 reportbug_11.0.0_source.buildinfo
Files:
 f2a3b632b5ed80dc8251f50ff6f22be8 1888 utils standard reportbug_11.0.0.dsc
 2d74a89a016d3766ead34516ce1ad275 232184 utils standard reportbug_11.0.0.tar.xz
 1db348d3f7f3f2db6ccf6361e360d7b1 6362 utils standard reportbug_11.0.0_source.buildinfo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=fhCc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- End Message ---
Reply to: