Hi Carsten, On 13.06.19 16:20, Carsten Schoenert wrote: > Hello Michael, > > Am 13.06.19 um 15:47 schrieb Michael Kesper: >>> This list is about the Debian websites and the maintenance of them, so> unfortunately you are on the wrong list for asking such questions. >> >> Unfortunately, that's the only address given visibly on the packages.d.o site: >> To report a problem with the web site, please e-mail our publicly archived mailing >> list debian-www@lists.debian.org in English. For other contact information, >> see the Debian contact page. Web site source code is available. >> >> So our site pointed Phil right here (I think we cannot expect people >> to go back to a general contact page if they have a problem with a >> specific site). > > I disagree a bit here. > The user should be able to distinguish between core issues about > functionality and features of the websites and technical questions about > packages. But maybe a FAQ or something about packages.d.o. could be shown on packages.d.o. website "I don't get any results" ... > For me the main thing in the post was to find possible backported > versions of gcc. Not the search was misbehaving. And mostly people > aren't reading the search output well enough (I count me in here too ... > sometimes). But doesn't that strengthen the point the messages need improvement? > Even here by the example of Phil there is also a link > presented which is lowering the search parameter and pointing to > > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc > > This site will show you all matching packages. If you can't find your > package in the suite you are looking for it's really likely it doesn't > exist there. Hmm, this seems to use a "limit 100" which is understandable but could lead to exactly NOT providing what I searched for. >>> But there are no backports of the gcc versions available! So the output >>> of the search is mostly correct. I think packages.d.o. could be a little bit smarter here. We _know_ for a fact that stretch-backports is a "backport" of a "distribution version". So if we don't find it there, point to another distribution version? I did not look at the code yet (there's also no pointer on that site where we can find that). Best wishes Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature