On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 09:13:48PM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: >... > Francesco Poli wrote: >... > > Moreover, other Debian-based distributions could decide to use a BTS > > based on debbugs (I don't know whether there are any _today_, but there > > could be some _in the future_),
Devuan did it, but in general the archaic debbugs is a poor fit for modern workflows and contributors in the 3rd millenium. In the future, Debian replacing debbugs with something else is more likely than other Debian-based distributions starting to use debbugs. > > and they could use a slightly different > > version of debbugs or a fork with different non-release-related > > tags. > > Good point. At least the GNU project also uses debbugs. Not sure if > it's only used for upstream work or if also some Debian derivates > (Trisquel comes to my mind) use it. >... Trisquel is based on Ubuntu, which removed apt-listbugs in 2008 since it was useless there. AFAIR Devuan uses debbugs, but it's not even obvious whether apt-listbugs on Devuan should use the Devuan BTS or the Debian BTS (since most relevant bugs will be in the latter) or both. The big picture here is that pretending the Debian-specific BTS interface of apt-listbugs would be generic is a mistake. IMHO apt-listbugs should FTBFS if "dpkg-vendor --query Vendor" does not return a supported vendor at build time. What to do for adding support for other vendors is then specific to the distribution in question. > Regards, Axel cu Adrian
