Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
Hey, I agree with Holger here - I think it would be a good idea to remove 'base' pseudo package. If removing it is not an option, we should at least make 'base' unreportable by reportbug. Way too many bugs (that are often simple support requests) that should be reported elsewhere are reported against 'base'. Regards, T. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:20:33 +0200, Tomasz Nitecki wrote: I agree with Holger here - I think it would be a good idea to remove 'base' pseudo package. Ack, I also have the impression that this pseudo-package doesn't serve any useful purpose any more. Cheers, gregor, who's also skeptical about general and would like to at least see it redirected to -user instead of -devel -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Kings of Convenience: My Ship Isn't Pretty signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
Control: clone -1 -2 Control: retitle -2 Indicate when a psuedopackage is deprecated at submit time Control: retitle -1 Deprecate base psueodpackage On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, gregor herrmann wrote: On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:20:33 +0200, Tomasz Nitecki wrote: I agree with Holger here - I think it would be a good idea to remove 'base' pseudo package. Ack, I also have the impression that this pseudo-package doesn't serve any useful purpose any more. Right. I think I'm going to keep it, but I'm going to mark it deprecated in the description. I'll probably also add support for deprecated psuedopackages to include an indication when new bugs are filed that it's probably filed against the wrong package. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Rule 6: If violence wasn't your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it. -- Howard Tayler _Schlock Mercenary_ March 13th, 2005 http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20050313.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
package: bugs.debian.org severity: wishlist x-debbugs-cc: debian-de...@bugs.debian.org, virtual-pkg-base-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Hi, please remove the base pseudo package, which description is Base system general bugs, though the old German translation is more telling about its history and why it's useless today: Allgemeine Fehler im Basis-System (baseX_Y.tgz) (http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages.de.html) Back in the very old days, when we had baseX_Y.tgz, the base pseudo package was useful, nowadys all base bugs can be reassigned to a specific package which is part of the base system. (Which probably (?) means all packages installed by debootstrap), so today the base pseudo package is completly bug free if someone bored enough cleans it. But this is a boring, repeative and useless job! This is different from the general pseudo package, which is useful for tracking general bugs which affect a large part of the distribution, see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=general for those 12 bugs (which I do consider useful to have there). http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/b/base.png and http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/g/general.png also underline my point. cheers, Holger, with his base bugs janitor hat, which is probably pretty but also useless signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
On Fri, 03 Jan 2014, Holger Levsen wrote: http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/b/base.png and http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/g/general.png also underline my point. Instead of removing it, I'd like to just prominently mark it as deprecated, and coordinate with reportbug to never show it as an option. Would that be good enough? -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Three little words. (In order of importance.) █ █ ▌ ▞▀▖▌ ▌▛▀▘ █ ▌ ▌ ▌▝▞ ▛▀ you █ ▀▀▘▝▀ ▘ ▀▀▘ █ -- hugh macleod Three Words -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
Hi Don, On Freitag, 3. Januar 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: Instead of removing it, I'd like to just prominently mark it as deprecated, and coordinate with reportbug to never show it as an option. why? and then you'd want to remove the base package in 5 years or keep it forever or?? Would that be good enough? Honestly, I don't see the point. The base system is gone. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
On Fri, 03 Jan 2014, Holger Levsen wrote: On Freitag, 3. Januar 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: Instead of removing it, I'd like to just prominently mark it as deprecated, and coordinate with reportbug to never show it as an option. why? and then you'd want to remove the base package in 5 years or keep it forever or?? If I don't keep it somewhere, then someone could potentially upload a package named base. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it actually matters if someone was to upload such a package at some time in the future. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I would like to be the air that inhabits you for a moment only. I would like to be that unnoticed that necessary. -- Margaret Atwood Poetry in Motion p140 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#734053: please remove the base pseudo package
Hi, On Freitag, 3. Januar 2014, Don Armstrong wrote: If I don't keep it somewhere, then someone could potentially upload a package named base. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it actually matters if someone was to upload such a package at some time in the future. I cannot see any problem with that and I believe there have been cases of package-name-takeovers in the past as well... cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
