home of the madduck/ blog/
bugscripts and rng

Yes, Bastian, there is a way to do what you want. I believe I told you from the very start: refactor reportbug and implement reportbug-ng on top of the existing code. But no, you chose to reimplement everything (a typical thing to do for GUI programmers) and now you are asking us maintainers to change the way we've been doing things for years?

You also make presumptuous statements about how we deal with bug reports. If you personally hate how certain packages prepare bug reports, then maybe you should personally suck it up and use different software? Seems like a more logical and less intrusive way forward, then expecting others to "send a friendly mail" to ask for more information on a bug report. Maybe you have all the time in the world, but I don't. I can work on e.g. mdadm (which uses an interactive bug script) only on rare occasions, and then I'd rather fix and close bugs than to indulge in another iteration of bug submitter ping-pong.

You are also personally annoyed by long pre-subject texts, which you doubt anyone reads? I don't even bother to challenge that, but let me say that pre-subject texts are there to prevent stupid bug reports, or bug reports filed in the wrong place, and to take load off the maintainer. So you chose to ignore them? Given the projected user-base of your tool, I'd say you should rather force people to read them by asking them to transcribe the text.

If you don't want to pop up a terminal, well, why the heck didn't you integrate debconf properly, while reusing reportbug, and taking a step forward to provide a proper interface for bug scripts? Why do you even bother to whine about interface issues at this point?

Feel free to take over my packages, which make use of interactive bug scripts. I see zero reason to change them, and I will not.

NP: The Flower Kings: Paradox Hotel