Don Armstrong wrote: > 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).
Sounds somewhat analogous to the case of debian-installer, which uses pseudopackage installation-reports as a "front desk" for bugs that have not been assigned to some specific component. > 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. For problems using the live-build scripts, live-build is the right package to file against. For problems (which may occur after boot time) with the supplied livecds, isn't something else appropriate? > The name seems logical, but it means that from this point forward, no > one will be able to create a package called debian-live. That seems like an unfortunate limitation, but useful to keep in mind. I suppose the ideal thing would be to rename http://live.debian.net to live.debian.org and use that as the package name. :) Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110208212713.GC1768@elie
