On Sat, 19 May 2012, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > The BTS could then not just track the binary/source package of a bug > but also the meta-source package. That way when gcc-4.4 is removed > from the archive the bugs can still be associated with the gcc-x.y > meta package and won't be completly lost. The gcc maintainers would > still be listed as repsonsible for the bug.
What may be the appropriate solution is to allow for meta-source packages to be specified at the BTS level instead. That is, I (or someone else with an owner@ hat) can just alias source packages to other source packages, so that they all appear to be the same source package. [Possibly also allowing for aliased binary packages as well, with aliases being overridden if there is a currently existing binary or source package with that name.] We can generate a list fairly automatically by parsing the changelog history looking for cases where a new source package name follows a previous source package name. Don Armstrong -- This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure. -- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- 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/20120519135505.gb8...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
