On Tue, 08 Feb 2011, Ben Armstrong wrote: > #612330 and #612359 provide more evidence a pseudopackage to collect > such reports is needed. Please note, Don, that after triaging, these > have been reassigned to the packages that need to be fixed, so it is > hard to do as you have asked, and give a list of bugs that would be > assigned today to this pseudopackage. But historically, we have had > a number of such bugs.
Pseudopackages are used as a place for bugs which have no other home. In these cases, there is a specific home for the bug (live-boot, live-build, live-magic, or perhaps some other package entirely). From my perspective, it seems like one of live-boot or live-build could be the entry point for these bugs, and then they could be assigned to the appropriate package. > As for the psuedopackage name, since debian-live is the project that > produces the live images, it is logical that debian-live should be > the name of the pseudopackage to collect reports about problems with > them. The name seems logical, but it means that from this point forward, no one will be able to create a package called debian-live. Because debian-live sounds like the name of a package that the debian-live project would want to create at some point, it isn't clear to me that this has been properly considered. Don Armstrong -- Religion is religion, however you wrap it, and like Quell says, a preoccupation with the next world clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one. -- Richard K. Morgan "Broken Angels" p65 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
