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

Bug#1070881: marked as done (reportbug: Provide an option to skip loading configuration files)

Your message dated Sun, 19 May 2024 09:45:45 +0200
with message-id <c1bfe735-27a9-41a8-9768-6db5815fb355@mailbox.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1070881: reportbug: Provide an option to skip loading configuration files
has caused the Debian Bug report #1070881,
regarding reportbug: Provide an option to skip loading configuration files
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.)


-- 
1070881: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070881
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: reportbug
Version: 12.0.0
Severity: wishlist

I'd like to propose adding an option to skip loading configuration files
(/etc/reportbug.conf and ~/.reportbugrc).  The use case is for external
programs that runs reportbug (e.g. debian-bug in elpa-debian-el) which
provides its own command line switches and have an assumption on the
output.  When a user set some custom options, notably CC related ones,
it may interfere with how X-Debbugs-Cc is handled and broke some of the
assumptions of external tools (see https://bugs.debian.org/1032662).

With an option to disable loading any configuration files we ensure the
default behavior so that external tools have a way to maintain some
assumptions.  There are probably other ways to assist external tools,
but as some have been working in this way having this option may be an
easier way to help.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: 12.5
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable-security'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-21-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
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                2.6.1
ii  python3            3.11.2-1+b1
ii  python3-reportbug  12.0.0
ii  sensible-utils     0.0.17+nmu1

reportbug recommends no packages.

Versions of packages reportbug suggests:
pn  claws-mail                      <none>
ii  debconf                         1.5.82
ii  debsums                         3.0.2.1
pn  dlocate                         <none>
ii  emacs-bin-common                1:29.3+1-3~bpo12+0manphiz1
ii  file                            1:5.44-3
ii  gnupg                           2.2.40-1.1
ii  postfix [mail-transport-agent]  3.7.10-0+deb12u1
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                2.6.1
ii  file               1:5.44-3
ii  python3            3.11.2-1+b1
ii  python3-apt        2.6.0
ii  python3-debian     0.1.49
ii  python3-debianbts  4.0.1
ii  python3-requests   2.28.1+dfsg-1
ii  sensible-utils     0.0.17+nmu1

python3-reportbug suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 19.05.2024 09.16, Xiyue Deng wrote:
> Right on top of my head I can think of two alternative ways of doing the
> same includes:
> 
> * For each option, provides an option to disable it, so that for an
>   option "--foo" there should be an option "--no-foo" to disable it.

In fact reportbug already has this for many of its options, although not
for list-cc-me.

>   - This leads to another question of when both "--foo" and "--no-foo"
>     as passed, which takes precedence?  What if one of them is set in
>     "~/.reportbugrc"?  In short, this option also doesn't scale.

The one on the command line overrides the one in the configuration file.
Not sure what happens if both "--foo" and "--no-foo" are passed on the
command line, but programs are already buggy if they pass such
contradictory arguments to reportbug. I think you might agree on this?

> I think I didn't actually mention another point: implementing this is
> trivial and potentially takes much less developer time compared to other
> options I mentioned above.  I'll try to work on an implementation in the
> next few days and propose a merge request or patches for you to review,
> if that's OK.

Thank you for your ideas and willingness to work to make reportbug
better. It is really appreciated. In this specific case, however, I
don't think you should spend time on implementing a new option. The
solution I pointed out in my other email earlier today seems good enough
for most practical purposes to me, so we will likely not merge anything
that adds new lines of code for this. I'm closing this bug now.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: