Bug#775797: bugs.debian.org: BTS doesn't know about BPO versions; breaks apt-listbugs
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:17:33AM -0500, Samuel Bronson wrote: > > It would be nice if you could process those changelogs, even if only > > for apt-listbugs' benefit. > > I heard a second-hand report today that this was deliberately not being > done on the grounds that some package maintainers don't want bugs > against backports to be filed in the BTS. I found the link to version > tracking in particular to be surprising, and I want to check that there > isn't a degree of "telephone game" happening here. From my perspective, I think we should be tracking the versioning of backport packages in the BTS; the only real reason I haven't done so is because I've lacked the time to drive the coordination required to move copy the .debinfo and .versions files from the backports archive, and make sure all of that is working. So if you do have the time to do so, that would be great. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln
Bug#775797: bugs.debian.org: BTS doesn't know about BPO versions; breaks apt-listbugs
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:17:33AM -0500, Samuel Bronson wrote: > As you know, bugs.debian.org doesn't eat the backport changelogs, so > it has no idea about what bugs might be present in any given BPO > version of a package. Even when those bugs are merely inherited from > the backported version of the package. > > Consequently, apt-listbugs will, at best, be able to find out about > bugs in backports if they were reported as found in that exact > backport version of the package -- which, if the reporter followed the > backports documentation, wouldn't even exist. > > It would be nice if you could process those changelogs, even if only > for apt-listbugs' benefit. I heard a second-hand report today that this was deliberately not being done on the grounds that some package maintainers don't want bugs against backports to be filed in the BTS. I found the link to version tracking in particular to be surprising, and I want to check that there isn't a degree of "telephone game" happening here. My intent in sending this email isn't to rehash that particular argument, which I know has gone back and forward a fair bit. There's a separate bug (https://bugs.debian.org/897934) for some of the problems that would perhaps make it more palatable for backports bugs to be handled in the BTS. However, leaving that aside: is there any reason for that debate to block BTS tracking of backports versions in particular? Samuel makes a good argument here that this would be useful from the point of view of users of backports, and I can well imagine that it would also be helpful for package maintainers who also maintain the corresponding backports. I find it improbable that simply fleshing out the version graph a bit more would result in a significant increase of bug reports against backports. If I were a more active BTS admin then TBH I'd be inclined to just do this, but since I'm pretty inactive I thought it best to ask around. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Bug#775797: bugs.debian.org: BTS doesn't know about BPO versions; breaks apt-listbugs
Package: bugs.debian.org Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, As you know, bugs.debian.org doesn't eat the backport changelogs, so it has no idea about what bugs might be present in any given BPO version of a package. Even when those bugs are merely inherited from the backported version of the package. Consequently, apt-listbugs will, at best, be able to find out about bugs in backports if they were reported as found in that exact backport version of the package -- which, if the reporter followed the backports documentation, wouldn't even exist. It would be nice if you could process those changelogs, even if only for apt-listbugs' benefit. (Better if you could also actually send bugs reported against BPO versions to the right place, but AIUI there is no clear definition of where that is.) Bug #45 / Bug #544726 is probably a bit more urgent, though... -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.8 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
