Bug#1021849: reportbug: non-SMP kernels are not visibly mentioned
Package: reportbug
Version: 11.5.1
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
Non-SMP machines are very, very rare today. This means, they use code paths
that don't get exercised elsewhere, and may trigger UP-specific bugs. Yet
reportbug points out SMP machines as if they were an oddity while UP don't
receive a remark.
It may seem that lack of "(SMP w/4294967296 cores)" implies UP -- but alas,
having done data mining on bug reports before, I know that a good part of
users trim the "System Information", and quite a lot of them replaces that
data with something written by hand.
Thus, please do append "(UP)" or some such on non-SMP boxen.
This particular machine for example is a D1 Nezha.
Meow!
-- Package-specific info:
** Environment settings:
EDITOR="jstar"
EMAIL="kilobyte@angband.pl"
INTERFACE="text"
** /home/kilobyte/.reportbugrc:
reportbug_version "11.5.0"
mode advanced
ui text
smtphost "barad-dur.angband.pl"
smtptls
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
merged-usr: no
Architecture: riscv64
Kernel: Linux 5.4.61 (PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)
Versions of packages reportbug depends on:
ii apt 2.5.3
ii python3 3.10.6-1
ii python3-reportbug 11.5.1
ii sensible-utils 0.0.17
reportbug recommends no packages.
Versions of packages reportbug suggests:
pn claws-mail <none>
ii debconf 1.5.79
pn debsums <none>
pn dlocate <none>
pn emacs-bin-common <none>
ii exim4-daemon-light [mail-transport-agent] 4.96-6
ii file 1:5.41-4
ii gnupg 2.2.39-1
pn python3-urwid <none>
pn reportbug-gtk <none>
pn xdg-utils <none>
Versions of packages python3-reportbug depends on:
ii apt 2.5.3
ii file 1:5.41-4
ii python3 3.10.6-1
ii python3-apt 2.3.0+b2
ii python3-debian 0.1.48
ii python3-debianbts 3.2.3
ii python3-requests 2.27.1+dfsg-1
ii sensible-utils 0.0.17
python3-reportbug suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
Reply to: