Re: The Future of Bug Buddy

[Ian Peters <itp helixcode com>]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Jacob "Ulysses" Berkman wrote:
> 
> Since some people are still using GNOME from sources rather than
> packages, bug buddy should work around this nicely.  What I am
> thinking of doing is having every module supply a bug buddy file which
> includes things like the list of binaries it provides, a list of
> things to check for, and where the email should be sent.  Also, a
> mapping of which packages come from the module would be provided,
> since bug buddy needs to know that and I haven't thought of anywhere
> else it could get this.
> 
> So, does this sound reasonable to people?  Does anyone have better
> ideas?  I know y'all have an opinion.  You can't hide.

My suggestion is to have our bug tracker maintain a set of aliases
between binary names and the module they belong to (as well as a
similar mapping for package names to module names).  Otherwise, your
bug buddy file would have to have a seperate list of packages which
come from a specific module for every different distribution.

gnome-libs-1.2.8.tar.gz becomes gnome-libs and gnome-libs-devel on Red
Hat like systems, gnlibs and gnlibsd on SuSE (I think?), and
libgnome32, libgnomeui32, gnome-bin, gnome-libs-data, libart2,
libart2-dev, ... on Debian.

In the package managed case, libredcarpet can already tell you what
package a file is in, what the version of that package is, and what
the version of every package that it depends on.  In the non-package
managed case, the best you can do is play some games with the dynamic
linker to find out the libraries, etc.

Keeping a set of aliases on the bug tracker means we don't have to
ship and distribute (and locate at run time) extra files, and we can
add support for programs easily.

Just my two cents.

-- 
Ian Peters
itp helixcode com