Malone: Making Binary Package go away on bugs?

Matthias Klose doko at
Mon Apr 10 17:47:40 BST 2006

Brad Bollenbach schrieb:
> On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 22:54 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Brad Bollenbach schrieb:
>>> Downsides:
>>> * You won't be able to list/search bugs by SP
>>> * ??
>> I don't like the idea, it's one more step for a package maintainer to
>> figure out something about the report.
>> consider: " wrong color in template", you're widening the
>> search space for the package maintainer by a factor of 30. Yes, you can
>> ask the bug submitter, but it's one more step. It makes sense for
>> packages which have only a few (<=3 ?) packages.
>> I see the goal to make the UI more simple for the bug submitter, but
>> dropping or not having data is not helpful. same for not having
>> architecture and version information.
> The goal is to make the maintainer's life simpler, by not having to
> maintain two package fields. The bug submitter already need not care
> about binary vs. source package when filing a bug. It Just Works. But I
> can see why this can make life more difficult for maintainers of large
> source packages.
> What if we made the "Package Name" field on the edit form work with
> either binary or source packages, like it already does on +filebug, so
> it can accept/display either a source or binary package? The main issue
> I see here would be making clear which source package this refers to, if
> the value in that field in a binary package. It *should* be clear from
> the context (because you can search only source package, not binary
> package bugs), but I'm not sure if that will make sense to most users.

what about just dumping the binary name to the first comment? "submitted
for the foo-bin package, which is part of foo-src".

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list