> Since when is documentation which doestn't exist at all considered > as a bug?
Hmmm, not sure. Certainly for at least the last 30 years. Probably much longer but that's as long as I've been involved in professional software development. > Wikipedia says in the `Software Bug' as first sentence: > A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, > mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that > produces, an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave > in unintended ways That seems to cover it nicely. "flaw" and "failure" both apply appropriately in this case. If you're having trouble comprehending how lack of documentation can be considered a bug, try turning the problem around and looking at it from a different direction. As it stands, if you install the package it does not work. Ah yes, that's because extra steps are needed to get it to work. Fine. What are the extra steps? Nobody knows. Actually, that "Nobody knows" isn't quite fair. Clearly some people know, but apparently none of the company presently assembled, and as that includes the maintainers of the package that's a pretty big deficiency. Clearly, adding some documentation is not the only way of fixing this bug, but the alternative - completing the installation process so that the package works after it's been installed - would be much, much harder to achieve. I will continue my researches, and if I manage to discover how to get the package working I will contribute a README in the hope of closing this bug. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
