Hi all, The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to check wnpp for RFH, RFA or O. Maybe having these bugs "in the face" of people interested in the package (i.e. on the package's bug page) can help attract contributions.
Additionally for some packages it might make sense to remove them from testing and raise the severity of the O bug to serious to signal that the package should not be included in the next release unless someone is willing to commit to maintain it. An immediate solution would probably be to 'affects <package>' so the bugs at least shows up on the package's bug page. Maybe the BTS could/should do this automatically? One a somewhat related note, I also notice confusion is created by the removal bugs being filed against ftp.debian.org. When people not familiar with Debian are looking into why a package has been removed they look at the (archived) package's bugs. Not a biggie, but might help users or prospective ITPers (e.g. if the removal reasons still apply). Not sure if 'affects' can help here. I'm guessing the current procedures were created because at the time the BTS did not have the 'affects <package>' feature. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
