Hi Ansgar,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:32:11AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> I believe bugs should always be assigned to source packages as source
> packages are really the unit we use to keep track of packages.
Since the thread seems largly in favour of this, let me strongly
disagree.
I extensively
On 2019-10-27, Ansgar wrote:
> We have usertags and other mechanisms that allow grouping bugs in
> maintainer-defined ways. This is also used by pseudo-packages where we
> don't have "binaries" to group bug reports by.
But that moves the "default" work, where users is right at least more
than
Sune Vuorela writes:
> On 2019-10-23, Ansgar wrote:
>> So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against
>> source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use
>> `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later.
>
> Have you ever
Guillem Jover writes:
> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 08:32:11 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing:
>> Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against
>> binary packages and (less often) against source packages.
>
>> It gets
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:32 PM Ansgar wrote:
> It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but
> otherwise unrelated exist; or when the same binary is built from
> different sources on different architectures; or when binary and source
> versions don't match (version
On 10/23/19 11:53 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Fully agreed. It's also hard for users to pinpoint the correct binary
> package and they tend to get stale with changes to binary names anyway
> (soname changes to libs etc.)
I think its easier for users to find the binary package name, as the
Hi!
On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 08:32:11 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing:
> Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against
> binary packages and (less often) against source packages.
> It gets confused if a source &
On 2019-10-23, Ansgar wrote:
> So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against
> source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use
> `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later.
Have you ever maintained source packages where a
On Mi, 23 oct 19, 08:32:11, Ansgar wrote:
>
> Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use
> `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later.
Beware of #721793, though I'm guessing the reportbug maintainer is aware
that 'Source: ' doesn't do what
Ansgar schrieb:
> the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing:
> Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against
> binary packages and (less often) against source packages.
>
> It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but
>
Quoting Gianfranco Costamagna (2019-10-24 12:31:51)
> I agree.
>
> With python2 being removed, we will have a lot of
> "src:python-foo" providing only a "bin:python3-foo"
> so this confusion will be even more a problem...
> (will we ever rename also source packages now that python2 is going to be
I agree.
With python2 being removed, we will have a lot of
"src:python-foo" providing only a "bin:python3-foo"
so this confusion will be even more a problem...
(will we ever rename also source packages now that python2 is going to be
removed?)
Gianfranco
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:32:11AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against
> source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use
> `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later.
I agree we should.
Hi,
the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing:
Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against
binary packages and (less often) against source packages.
It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but
otherwise unrelated
14 matches
Mail list logo
