On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:02AM -0400, Damon L. Chesser wrote: > Bob Cox wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:18:00 -0400, Damon L. Chesser >> (damon@damtek.com) wrote: >> >> >>> I hate to ask this, this is so stupid! I gave up using the bug >>> search function long ago. I can't ever find anything! >>> >>> If I go to http://www.debian.org/Bugs/ and put in libjvulibre I get >>> nada. Same result if I search for >>> >>> libdjvulibre21_3.5.20-5_i386.deb or libdjvulibre15. So, what is it >>> my brain does not parse that everybody else knows? >>> >> >> Try with libdjvulibre21 - that seems to produce something. >> >> > Well, I said it was stupid. It does show up something. I could have > sworn I did that and nothing showed. For being so smart, I can be so > stupid sometimes. nah, not stupid. just gifted in non-obvious ways? ;-) seriously though, here are a couple of pointers. there is a better bug search at: http://merkel.debian.org/~don/cgi/search.cgi that does turn up results for the string libjvulibre and its important to understand how BTS search works. If you enter a string for the package name to search for, it looks for bugs against that package. It doesn't check the validity of the package name. You can test this by entering nonsense in the search field: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=goobers&archive=no&version=&dist=unstable it blithely reports that there are no bugs for the package goobers, which is of course true. It neglects to mention that there is no such package. But if you read between the lines there, you'll realise that it hints at there being no such package. And if you follow the link to "goobers package page" it returns no results. With that bit of information about BTS, you'll now realise when you've entered an incorrect packages name and try again. :) A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature