Re: The Future of Bug Buddy

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

jacob helixcode com (Jacob "Ulysses" Berkman) writes:

> Hi kids.
> 
> So, I'm in the middle or so of the infamous bug buddy rewrite, and am
> yearning for a bit of feedback from y'all, being the GNOME maintainers
> and what not.
> 
> (throughout this, "package" will denote a binary package, such as
> gnome-panel or libgtk-1.2, and "module" will denote a source tarball
> name, such as gnome-core or gtk+)
> 
> Bug Buddy will be using libredcarpet.  This allows it to do some much
> nicer things, such as list the version of everything something depends
> on, rather than the per-BTS setting it currently uses. This means that
> gnumeric bug reports will include the version of gal, gnome-print,
> bonobo (if compiled in) etc.
> 
> 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.

If building from source still provides all the needed dependency and
version info, why involve the packaging system at all? Why not just
install these bug-buddy files with the packages?


Also, I assume libredcarpet will be available in source form by the
time this version of bug buddy is released. Will it also be available
on a publicly accessible cvs server (for instance cvs.gnome.org) by
then?

(Not that I think this is mandatory, but it would be way helpful if it
were).

 - Maciej