On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:46:19PM -0500, jereme wrote: > Hi all, > > > I am working on fixing my first bug in the package faqomatic, which > I would like to adopt. I have a few "how should this be handled" > questions. > > The bug is #177890 and it basically reports that faqomatic, (a web > based program for maintaining faq's) produces invalid HTML output. > > Faqomatic uses CGI.pm for output, this definately isn't Debian > specific. I assume this would be forwarded to the upstream > faqomatic author? if it's a CGI.pm issue then consider reassign it to libcgi-pm-perl package and forward to module upstream author. > > Also, the report, which looks to have been generated by reportbug, > lists the package version as 2.717-0 but the available Debian > versions are: > > stable faqomatic 2.712-3 > testing faqomatic 2.714-2 > unstable faqomatic 2.714-3 > > How can this be? Could the reporter have been using a non-debian > package? Current upstream is 2.717. sure, for example by using unofficial repository or by building the package using debian/ directory sometimes bundled with upstream source (eg. mplayer) > > Version confusion asside, I tested the output from faqomatic > running on my stable system with nsgmls and it did indead report > some problems. I also tried to validate the front page of the > faqomatic main site, (running 2.717) and it to reported errors. if these are known problems try to fix and eventually talk with the upstream author, else file a bug :) > > I guess many of these questions should be directed to the reporter. this is surely the best option > I would also like to know which version of CGI.pm is installed on > their machine. this question suggests me that faqomatic (reporter version, not in debian) doesn't depend on libcgi-pm-perl
filippo. -- Filippo Giunchedi GNU/PG key id: 1024D/6B79D401 Random signature follows: Date: Tuesday, 2002/10/22 - 08:09 dselect proves the existence of Satan. It's the worst part of Debian
msg08438/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
