Usertagging rules

Manuel Prinz debian at
Wed Sep 10 12:25:48 UTC 2008

Hi everyone,

one the quest of getting a better overview of scientific packages in
Debian I was working on the usertagging of bugs in the BTS. I'd like
know your opinion on the following points:

1. What to do with closed ITPs? I do not see any point in having them
tagged, so I propose to remove all usertags when they hit the archive.
Currently, we have ITPs tracked that are closed either because the
package is available in Debian or noone cared to make a package.
Removing those who are in the archive would make the other packages more
visible. On the other hand, we could introduce a new usertag for
seperating them. I have a script to detect the ITP bugs that where
closed when the package hit the archive, so removing their usertags can
be automated in the future. This would allow us to see just the
"work-needing but closed" ITPs.

2. Changing to "field..x": Some (old) bug have usertags such as
"biology", whereas "field..biology" seems to be the recently used term.
While changing those to their "field" correspondent, I saw that all of
them where archived. I'd like to change those but am not sure if the
"field" notation is the consensus.

3. Some bugs carry tags such as "fortran" or "rfs". I'd like to remove
the "fortran" tags as this does not help in any way but I am not sure if
we should use an "rfs" tag. I think sponsoring request will go to this
list in most cases, or does anyone watch for packages to sponsor via
this usertag? If not, I'd remove that too.

Best regards

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : 

More information about the debian-science-maintainers mailing list