[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: `gnus-bug' bug?

From: Garreau\, Alexandre
Subject: Re: `gnus-bug' bug?
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 05:17:38 +0100
User-agent: Gnus (5.13), GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.22.11) of 2017-09-15, modified by Debian

On 2018-10-31 at 20:49, Michael Albinus wrote:
> Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:
>>> So first, dear GNU debbugs people, would it be currently possible
>>> for “gnus” bugs to be automatically tagged “emacs”?  would it be
>>> hard to hack debbugs to do so (so to deal with such “subpackages”)?
>>> Or should “gnus” package be removed?
>> I think the "gnus" package should be removed. It was discussed a bit
>> on Bug#20670 (not otherwise related):
> I'm not sure. "gnus" is used as second package beside "emacs", so it is
> simple to filter for gnus bugs in debbugs. A gnus bug report, at least
> when calling "M-x gnus-bug", adds the header "X-Debbugs-Package: emacs,gnus",
> which sounds OK to me. This was changed by Lars on Feb 7 2017, so I
> guess all Emacs versions since 26.1 behave so.

So they’re not obsolete anymore? Cool, for the same reasons mentioned

I’m directing this mail to Lars to ask him how’s that evolving in the
end, if `gnus-bug' is going to be kept and possibly improved (again?)

I mean, `org-mode' is not even (yet?) a debbugs package per se, and yet
have (too) its own mailing-list (though it’s GNU) and its own
`org-submit-bug-report', too… except `org-submit-bug-report' submit also
changed variables list, for debugging purpose, while `gnus-bug'… but
then, for it to be perfect maybe once more:

On 2018/10/30 at 14h33, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
> "Garreau, Alexandre" <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 2018-10-29 at 10:17, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>> This sort of very specific suggestion could have gone in a bug report to
>>> begin with, yes, though it doesn't matter too much. Gnus bugs are
>>> reported along with Emacs bugs. You can also use `gnus-bug' to do the
>>> report, in which case the bug will also be reported in the "Gnus
>>> package", and you can see them here:
>>> But tbh I don't know if that's the right thing to do, since Gnus isn't
>>> its own package anymore. It used to be, but is no longer, hence the
>>> confusion.
>> I mistakenly thought it would tag everything “gnus” as “emacs” too, as
>> all “gnus” bug here are also tagged “emacs”: how were most of those
>> reported?
> Hmm, when I run `gnus-bug', it automatically adds this header to the
> outgoing message:
> X-Debbugs-Package: emacs,gnus 
> Which correctly tags the bug report with both headers. It looks like
> this was added in last year,

So everybody agrees as I heard this twice.

> if you're not using a recent Emacs, maybe that's not happening?


>> On 1995-02-24 at 12:40, ding wrote:
>>> If you want to report a bug, please type `M-x gnus-bug'.  This will
>>> give me a precise overview of your Gnus and Emacs version numbers,
>>> along with a look at all Gnus variables you have changed.
> Where did you find this?! It might have behaved this way in 1995, but it
> certainly doesn't now, and I don't know when the changed-Gnus-variables
> thing was removed.

So why doesn’t it do that anymore?  This is the only one detail that
makes `gnus-bug' looks as not totally superior and more specific than

reply via email to

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