Hello Andrei and all, On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:24:59 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 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. Have you tried to hack anything yet? I've seen that Don Armstrong seens to be open to these ideas. I've also been roaming around http://bugs.debian.org/bugs.debian.org and I'm also encountering the same problems you describe above. *t -- 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/394759cd3e5b59c9f637b444f3df3...@sourcepole.ch
