On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : > > 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. > > it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g. > http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html: > "problems > > The current maintainer is looking for someone who can take over > maintenance of this package. If you are interested in this package, > please consider taking it over. Alternatively you may want to be > co-maintainer in order to help the actual maintainer. Please see bug > number #532093 for more information." > > I don't see a reason to move it away from wnpp: its great to have a > central place for that information, but I agree it is useful to have > the info forwarded to other places (such as the PTS, and perhaps the > package's own bug page).
Instead of parsing a wnpp bug title, with potential errors, have a more formal data model and tag RFH/RFA/O.. with a dedicated wnpp tag ? This way, you can : - easily get the list of wnpp bugs - easily see a package has a wnpp bugs - get rid of all the parsing needed by PTS, wnpp-alert, UDD, etc. -- Simon Paillard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026180527.ga30...@glenfiddich.mraw.org
