Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 22:10:56 +0100 Javier Serrano Polo wrote: > I am trying to solve a bug, Perhaps this should be a permanent bug without the wontfix tag. I do not know why wontfix would not be correct, but I will leave the tagging to other users. I have provided a patch; without feedback, I

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 11:53:44 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > # It is not up to people who are not submitters or BTS admins to determine the outcome for this bug What do you mean? Are you the submitter? No, you refused to be. Are you a BTS admin? No, you are not listed as a member. You determine the

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

Control: tags -1 wontfix El dt 29 de 09 de 2020 a les 17:10 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo va escriure: > Thus, I will tag this report as wontfix. Tagging. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:47:52 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > submitter 837723 Don Armstrong Paul Wise is not helping, since he undoes my work without any explanation. Let us continue. This bug is four years old, a patch has been submitted, and maintainers show no will to fix the bug. Thus, I will tag

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

Control: submitter -1 p...@debian.org Control: tags -1 patch El dl 14 de 09 de 2020 a les 08:40 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo va escriure: > you should become the new submitter. Changing then. > Could you explain your reason for reopening this bug? I assume you are not satisfied with current

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:40:48 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: > reopen 837723  Since the original submitter does not care anymore, you should become the new submitter. Could you explain your reason for reopening this bug? What is your request to the Debian bug tracking team? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:18:39 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote: > If that doesn't work, might it be possible to make it impossible to > _report_ a bug against general, but still retain the ability to > _reassign_ a bug to general ? This would only complicate the handling of general bugs. As said, we need

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org"): > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:11:21PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > bugs.debian.org controls whether pseudopackage exist at all; reportbug > >

Bug#837723: base is worse than general (Re: Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:23:48PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > Sorry if this has been brought up already. Another option would be to > change the mapping of package:general from debian-devel@ldo to > debian-user@ldo. I guess this has a similar effect (getting help in > triaging the problem)

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:24:49 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Should we just disable the general pseudo-package? Is it serving a > > sufficient useful purpose to warrant the constant (if somewhat slow) > > stream of misdirected bug reports? > I personally

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

I'm quite disappointed that instead of trying to fix the bug you are just trying to discuss how to make user life more complicated. What is the difference between Debian and any commercial SW? Just that it becomes less user friendly with less support despite it is cost free. --  Cheers, Abou Al

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:11:21PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > bugs.debian.org controls whether pseudopackage exist at all; reportbug > is responsible for what reportbug outputs as possible pseudopackages. I'm well aware of that… > That's true. There are some bugs which affect lots of

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

Control: affects -1 reportbug On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 03:24:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Package: bugs.debian.org > > I think this is the wrong package and should rather be handled by > reportbug… bugs.debian.org controls whether pseudopackage

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 03:24:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > Package: bugs.debian.org I think this is the wrong package and should rather be handled by reportbug… > Does anyone have a strong objection to this? I think I have a strong opinion on it, but not a strong objection ;p also as

Bug#837723: Removing/Disabling the general psuedo package; refering to debian-u...@lists.debian.org

Package: bugs.debian.org Severity: minor Control: affects -1 general On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Russ Allbery wrote: > Holger Levsen writes: > > I'd close this bug again, but I gave up on caring about bugs in the > > "general" pseudo package… > > Should we just disable the