(cc'ing the apt maintainers for advice) > Samuel Thibault hat am 08.02.2021 09:31 geschrieben: > > > Uh, reportbug does it completely wrongly indeed: > > $ reportbug libbsd0-udeb > [...] > > Which of the following packages is the bug in? > > 1 libbsd-dev utility functions from BSD systems - development files > > 2 libbsd0 Utilitaires issus des systèmes BSD — bibliothèque partagée > > 3 libbsd0-dbg utility functions from BSD systems - debugging symbols > > 4 libbsd0-udeb Source package > > Select one of these packages: > > > The package naming is completely off here.
The "completely off" refers to option 4, where the correct source package name would have been libbsd. When you give reportbug a binary package name, reportbug tries to determine the corresponding source package name like this: https://salsa.debian.org/reportbug-team/reportbug/-/blob/master/reportbug/utils.py#L555 What happens here is that the binary package lookup in the apt cache fails (probably because this is an udeb package), but the SourceRecords().lookup() with the given package name succeeds. Shouldn't this only succeed if there is a source package with this name? The documentation does not mention binary packages in the section on SourceRecords().lookup(). I'm wondering whether reportbug is using apt's python bindings incorrectly. What would be the correct way to obtain the source package name of an udeb package using python3-apt?
