This is actually quite deliberate. It's much more explicit to have no
Package: key than inventing an arbitrary one and risking collisions with
a package name that actually exists. While it's unlikely that there's a
real package named "unknown", the presence of a field is usually equally
easy (and more robust) to detect than checking for a particular name
IMHO. So I'd call this "wontfix" really. Is there something in the chain
which absolutely depends on a Package: field? Could we not fix that
instead, or wait until we implement actual click support in apport?
** Changed in: apport (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apport in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1365137
Title:
if apport can't determine the package it creates a report without a
package key
Status in “apport” package in Ubuntu:
Incomplete
Bug description:
In the event that apport's add_package_info is not passed a package
parameter and
apport.fileutils.find_file_package(self['ExecutablePath']) returns
nothing then a report is created with a Package key. This is currently
the case with click packages, see bug 1365079. However, independent
of fixing that issue I think it might be worth while if apport were to
add a Package key with "unknown" to the report to allow all these
types of issues to be more easily found on the error tracker. This way
the individual instances could be investigated and potentially
resolved.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/1365137/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
