Rene Engelhard schrieb am Thursday, den 09. September 2010:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 01:22:24PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: It's certainly a bug in the backported package using debhelper
> > improperly; it may also be an additional wishlist bug in debhelper.
>
> I disagree, the backported
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 01:22:24PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: It's certainly a bug in the backported package using debhelper
> improperly; it may also be an additional wishlist bug in debhelper.
I disagree, the backported package uses debhelper correctly. Especially
if you don't use the back
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:04:24PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > That's not a bug in debhelper; it's a bug in the backport of the
> > package, so it shouldn't be filed against debhelper. [Though, perhaps
> > it could be a wishlist request; I don't know
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:04:24PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> That's not a bug in debhelper; it's a bug in the backport of the
> package, so it shouldn't be filed against debhelper. [Though, perhaps
> it could be a wishlist request; I don't know.]
No, it's a bug in the debhelper backport.
If b
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> That would equally make "all bpo bugs go to the BTS" in my case. Thanks, but
> no,
> thanks. Especially not if the "bug" is caused by a external package and/or
> debhelper
> backported but its scripts not adapted back to lenny so that e.g. the built
>
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:09:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > For the package in question, the backports are done by a fellow
> > comaintainer, so I'm not complaining about the bug traffic; but that
> > doesn't mean it's *right* for that traffic to be going to
Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org):
> A single package I'm comaintainer of that has a backports.org backport has
> received at least 12 bug reports to the BTS over the past year referencing
> bpo versions (not counting any that might have been retargeted using
> found/notfound after being
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > But when someone takes my package and uploads it somewhere other
> > than the main Debian archive, they incur *all* the responsibilities
> > of maintaining that package, including the res
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 08:57:56PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:03:56 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 05:13:14PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > > Backports has now been declared "officially" supported by the project
> > > > > as a whole. Tha
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Just to make that clear: I did not talk about any burden for the
> package maintainers but the burden for the BTS
> maintainers/developers to add support for bpo. Whether or not the
> infrastructure for that (in the BTS) might be useful nonetheless is
>
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:03:56 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 05:13:14PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > Backports has now been declared "officially" supported by the project
> > > > as a whole. That made it the collective responsibility of all
> > > > Debian Developers
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 05:13:14PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > Backports has now been declared "officially" supported by the project
> > > as a whole. That made it the collective responsibility of all
> > > Debian Developers whether or not individuals in particular like it or
> > > not.
>
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Doing a quick look at the backports mailing list archive, there are less
> than 10 bugs reported per month on average. That is for hundreds of
> packages. Doing some fuzzy math, if you have a package that got
> backported, you may see an additional 10/100 = 0.1 bug repor
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:48:09 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Doing a quick look at the backports mailing list archive, there are less
> > than 10 bugs reported per month on average. That is for hundreds of
> > packages. Doing some
Steve Langasek writes:
> For the package in question, the backports are done by a fellow
> comaintainer, so I'm not complaining about the bug traffic; but that
> doesn't mean it's *right* for that traffic to be going to the BTS by
> default.
I wonder if we could apply some logic such as if the b
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Doing a quick look at the backports mailing list archive, there are less
> than 10 bugs reported per month on average. That is for hundreds of
> packages. Doing some fuzzy math, if you have a package that got
> backported, you may
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:27:47 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:56:21 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > An alternative solution is t
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:56:21 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > An alternative solution is to just have reportbug mail the backport
> > > bug reporting mailing l
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 21:56:21 +0200, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > An alternative solution is to just have reportbug mail the backport
> > bug reporting mailing list, and have people bounce messages as
> > appropriate to the BTS.
>
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:46:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> An alternative solution is to just have reportbug mail the backport
> bug reporting mailing list, and have people bounce messages as
> appropriate to the BTS.
Imho, this is the most sensible approach for now. The number of bugs
20 matches
Mail list logo
