On 08/02/11 05:13 PM, 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).
I was thinking of something along the lines of installation-reports. > 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. Since live systems are complex products of these packages and are not these packages themselves, I still don't see what distinguishes this from the case of installation-reports. It is the live system itself that breaks when someone reports a bug. Aren't those reports used as an entry point and then sometimes the bug is reassigned elsewhere? Or is a new, separate bug filed when they find the root cause? > 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. I see. Well, imagination fails me right now (somehow "live-reports" seems not quite right, either, not without a formal reporting mechanism that would collect and summarize some useful information as installation-reports has) but we'll think about it. Thanks, Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
