[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: debbugs, and a FAQ, for Autotools

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: debbugs, and a FAQ, for Autotools
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:30:39 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

Hi Eric,

* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:24:01PM CET:
> On 02/13/2011 11:12 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > 1) Autoconf and Libtool should also use debbugs.
> > 
> > bug-automake has switched a few months ago, and I find it helpful to
> > avoid losing reports.  Given that we never have enough time on our
> > hands, it becomes more important to not lose track.
> > 
> > See and linked pages for details.
> Seems like it might be reasonable for autoconf.  However, my biggest
> concern is that right now, I filter both autoconf and automake messages
> into the same mail folder, but debbugs anonymizes which list a bug is
> being reported against (that is, the To: is rewritten as
> address@hidden, so there is no longer any mention of 'automake' in
> any of the normal mail headers).  While I could probably force filtering
> to take place on X-Debbugs-Original-To:, that still doesn't solve the
> problem of no visual indication on which list a bug is reported against.

Can you show Sender: information by your mail program?
That's what I use both for show and filter.

This seems like a problem that is more general than just the question of
whether Autoconf or Libtool should use debbugs.  IOW, if the above is
not sufficient, then debbugs should provide help.  (Or we could also
patch mail user agents.  ;-)  I'm adding Glenn in Cc:, in case he has
further input on this.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]