Re: debbugs, and a FAQ, for Autotools

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Let's pick this up again, but for Libtool only for now.

[ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2011-02/msg00025.html ]

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 07:12:02PM CET:
> [ Cross post; Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To set.  Please followup to
>   the automake list only, to avoid excessive spammage.  Thank you.  ]

> I've been advertising debbugs before, I think we should be a good
> example.  So, two proposals:
> 
> 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.

Do any Libtool developers or regulars have any issue with this?
We do keep forgetting about bug reports, and we do have contributors
that only work every once in a while, and for both it would seem to
be useful to have a list of open issues.

Eric had concerns that it would be difficult to tell which package a bug
was against.  The Sender: header shows this, however, so I don't see it
as a big problem (unless your MUA cannot be configured to show this
particular header).  Or we could modify debbugs to provide some more
hints.

If there is no disagreement by, let's say Monday, Glenn could you then
set up debbugs for the bug-libtool list?

Thanks,
Ralf