Fernando Lemos writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Patrick Strasser
> wrote:
> [...]
>> Why not use some simple non-HTTP-protocol on port 80?
>
> That tends to break transparent proxying. If port 80 is the only one
> you have open, chances are you're behind a transparent proxy as well.
>
Ian Jackson writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
>> Ian Jackson writes:
>> > The reason why there is a problem with an http submission interface is
>> > that suddenly every idiot will think "oh I must write a c
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Patrick Strasser
wrote:
[...]
> Why not use some simple non-HTTP-protocol on port 80?
That tends to break transparent proxying. If port 80 is the only one
you have open, chances are you're behind a transparent proxy as well.
Regards,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
schrieb Ian Jackson am 2011-05-25 13:46:
> I wrote:
>> Brian May writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
>>> [ explanation of how reportbug is broken right now ]
>>
>> We could solve this if we can avoid the slippery slope problem.
>>
>> Or to
Russell Coker writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
> Would someone who wants to write a HTTP client bug reporting tool really be
> prevented because they have to setup their own server too?
That would just result in their mail server being blocked by DSA or
owner@bugs
There are plenty of cgi-bin scripts that send email via a web interface. I'm
sure that it wouldn't be difficult to install one of them on a web server for
the purpose of forwarding Debian bug reports. So really anyone who is good at
running web servers can setup a HTTP submission method if the
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > The reason why there is a problem with an http submission interface is
> > that suddenly every idiot will think "oh I must write a cool ui for
> > this".
>
> But
Ian Jackson writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
>> So everyone is allowed to write a frontend to report bugs via smtp. But
>> only reportbug is allowed to use http? That seems a bit stupid.
>
> No-one _wants_ to write a fronte
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
> So everyone is allowed to write a frontend to report bugs via smtp. But
> only reportbug is allowed to use http? That seems a bit stupid.
No-one _wants_ to write a frontend to report bugs via smtp, and doing
so as a s
Brian May writes:
> Some don't even have Internet access.
So, how do you propose reportbug should handle those? Send a fax?
Seriously, what problem do you have that isn't solved by
"reportbug --offline --output=foo"
?
Bjørn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.
Ian Jackson writes:
> Brian May writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
>> [ explanation of how reportbug is broken right now ]
>
> We could solve this if we can avoid the slippery slope problem.
>
> Or to put it another way, I would have no objection to an htt
I wrote:
> Brian May writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
> > [ explanation of how reportbug is broken right now ]
>
> We could solve this if we can avoid the slippery slope problem.
>
> Or to put it another way, I would have no objection to an http
&g
Brian May writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
> [ explanation of how reportbug is broken right now ]
We could solve this if we can avoid the slippery slope problem.
Or to put it another way, I would have no objection to an http
submission interface to the BTS, provided
On 25 May 2011 05:25, Patrick Strasser wrote:
> Point 3). Still it's too hard for a real novice which would like to help
> to get a bug report not at all out. The starting suggestion for this
> thread was to add an HTTP based transport path to get around the MTA
> thing. In the mid 90ies I was st
14 matches
Mail list logo
