Re: "general" bugs

2014-12-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Don Armstrong wrote: > I don't particularly mind if we change it to have an "unknown package" > pseudopackage instead of debian-user, but some list/someone would have > to be the maintainer, and deal with triaging those bugs. I think it would be best to disable th

Re: "general" bugs

2014-12-09 Thread Andrei POPESCU
On Ma, 09 dec 14, 10:36:41, Don Armstrong wrote: > > I don't particularly mind if we change it to have an "unknown package" > pseudopackage instead of debian-user, but some list/someone would have > to be the maintainer, and deal with triaging those bugs. Ideally that would be debian-user, howeve

Re: "general" bugs

2014-12-09 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Simon Richter wrote: > as two bugs have been filed against "general" in the last days by > users who were unsure which package to file against, I think it would > be great to have a well-defined process for reporting bugs that cannot > be immediately mapped to a package. https

"general" bugs

2014-12-09 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, as two bugs have been filed against "general" in the last days by users who were unsure which package to file against, I think it would be great to have a well-defined process for reporting bugs that cannot be immediately mapped to a package. Does it make sense to use "general" for this (as d

Processed: general bugs

1999-05-20 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 38055 wmss Bug#38055: general: Wmss depends on the unavailable package libwraster1. Bug reassigned from package `general' to `wmss'. > reassign 38057 libgtop0 Bug#38057: general: libgtop0: Depends: libglib1.1.13 (>= 1.1.13-1) but it is not