On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 02:44:45PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote: > On 21.07.2007 13:36 schrieb Brice Goglin: > > Sune Vuorela wrote: > >> I prefer reportbug-ng over any webinterface to recieve bug reports. All > >> the information about the reporters system that is automatically > >> gathered about architecture, package versions and such.
> > reportbug-ng does *not* gather all the information about the reporters > > system... see #422085 > This bug is about replicating a reportbug specific feature. No, it's about making use of infrastructure that has been in place since before reportbug was written (/usr/share/bug refers originally to the 'bug' package). > In my opinion most of the time it is not necessary to always collect all > possibly useful information about the reporters system. And in the cases > where the automatically collected information was not sufficient, the > maintainer has always the option to ask for more info. My assessment of reportbug-ng has just gone way down. The scripts in /usr/share/bug/ are *created by the package maintainers to collect information they believe should be present in bug reports about their packages*. Asserting that maintainers "have the option" to ask for more info is just stupid; the whole point of having /usr/share/bug/$package/script is to save a round trip with the submitter, and to save the submitter (who may not be very adept at all) the trouble of figuring out how to capture this information to a mail by hand. You really have no business second-guessing maintainers regarding the utility of the information being collected. If this important feature is not slated to be implemented soon, I guess I for one will have to recommend against the use of reportbug-ng for the foreseeable future. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
