Re: (in lieu of a) Vendor field on .debs (was practical problems with GR)
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:48:33AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > What about allowing each .deb to provide a bug reporting address?
> > That'd be handy for autobugs.
> This means a BTS split beyond the level at which the BTS'es shall be
> functional. Back to square one, Err... back to Redhat/rpmfind.net ;-)
Why? Each vendor has his own BTS (vendors including e. g. Debian or
Corel). Individuals that provide their own debs outside of an official
distribution can just provide their e-mail address in such a header.
BTS mail is perfectly human-readable.
I do not see where there would be a split that doesn't exist at the
moment. You can't file bugs against Corel or Helixcode packages in the
Debian BTS, can you?
> I would rather suggest keeping a list of vendors that have complied with the
> a few principles on how to maintain the stuff. If it comes from them bug goes
> to their BTS cc'ed into Debian BTS.
> If it comes from vendors off the list than dpkg should ask a question with
> appropriate priority with something like "Dependencies on this package have
> not been verified and the package is not being tracked by the Debian BTS".
> Some other verbal voodo may follow.
Thereby dividing debs into "good" and "bad" or "first-class" and
"second-class". That's surely not the way to go.
- Sebastian, not a developer, either
Reply to: