Frank Lichtenheld said: > Important bugs - outstanding > > * #195105: packages.debian.org: search_packages: search is > (temporarily) broken > Package: www.debian.org; Severity: important; Reported by: "John > R. Daily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: unreproducible; 78 days old. > > Will close this, as it hasn't happened since then and it's just > pointless to leave it open.
Especially if the bug reporter has not seen the problem again, or has not responded to any queries for more information? > * #176437: www.debian.org: URL checker not checking > Package: www.debian.org; Reported by: Larry Gilbert > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 214 days old. > > Has anyone the scripts that where used for this and can make them > publicy available? Or are there any reasons why we would not have > a URL checker? This was being run by James Treacy IIRC but I don't know why someone else can't copy them and hack them up a bit. I imagine the only reason they're not still being run by cron is because there was a problem ... http://www-master.debian.org/~treacy/urlcheck/scripts/ If they all look like black magic maybe 'linkchecker' could do the job? http://linkchecker.sf.net/ It's also in Debian of course (unstable has the latest release from sf). I have used it to process a few sites for link rot, but nothing as big and complex as the Debian web site. So I don't know if it's up to the task or not. Someone with more bandwidth and CPU power than I could try perhaps? =) > * #142908: related_links: Debian implements GNU, doesn't just take > utils from > Package: www.debian.org; Severity: minor; Reported by: Ben Finney > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 1 year and 121 days old. > > I don't really know if the statement in the bug is true. Opinions? > If it is true it should be simple to provide a patch, if not, let's > close the bug. I think the bug is an opinion in itself. =) Wouldn't it be up to the debian-legal team (or the Debian Leader and the Technical Comittee) to determine this? > * #193106: bugs.debian.org: what defaults on /Bugs page? > Package: www.debian.org; Severity: minor; Reported by: Dan > Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 93 days old. > > I would say: close it. No other complains about this than Dan Jacobson... The obvious defaults are those form elements that, in the HTML source, have the "checked" attribute. However I think it is not at all unreasonable to include the text [default] after the default form elements. Arguments against this are probably based on the perception of the /Bugs/ page being made uglier. An alternative could be to hyperlink the text "the defaults" in "the defaults will work" to a new section below the form, explaining what the default options are. That shouldn't be too hard. It's also non-intuitive to find the default values on a form when there is no 'clear' or 'reset' button. Using that button will tell the user's browser to take the form back to its default settings, in case they've gone and clicked a few things and now can't remember what they did. If you think there's any merit in my suggestions I'd be happy to follow them up in the BTS. Andrew. -- Andrew Shugg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.neep.com.au/ "Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself." "Is there? Well I'd like to meet him. I could do with a good laugh."
