On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote: > I'd like to request the creation of 'bts-link' pseudo-package, in order to > provide a better "interface" for requests for 'bts-link' service.
I'd be down to create it, but I think that at some point in the future you'd all like to create a real live bts-link package to distribute alongside debbugs for people who run debbugs. [At least, I hope that's a future goal.] I Psuedopackages do not transition to real packages elegantly. [At least, I think they don't.] (It's probably ok to shove a bts-link package into experimental for just this purpose.) That said, assuming bts-link actually becomes integrated into b.d.o, I wouldn't be averse to you all having bugs that affect bts-link assigned to the bugs.debian.org pseudopackage, so long as you usertag them appropriately to segregate them out. [In fact, having bugs assigned to some pseudopackage in the BTS (general or b.d.o) is a necessary precondition to creating a specific psuedopackage anyway; I need to see a set of bugs which have been filed to know that it's worth stepping into the package namespace.] Don Armstrong -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. -- Craig Dickson in <[email protected]> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
