[Bash-completion-devel] Bug#498474: Bug#498474: moreinfo

[David Paleino]

Hi Lucio,
please keep all us CCed :)

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:28:18 +0200, Lucio Crusca wrote:

> Currently I have no access to the only box where I can reproduce this bug (it 
> is a fileserver at a customer's office). However I'll post here all the info 
> you ask as soon as I can access the server.

Ok, thanks.

> <rant>
> About the RC bug argument: I didn't even know that a grave bug is RC while an 
> important one isn't. I simply read the instructions that reportbug prints on 
> the screen: it says that the bug is grave when the package is completely 
> unusable, and that's exactly the situation on said server. Is it not a 
> bash-completion bug? Ok, I take your word, but please recognize it's not easy 
> for non-developers to identify the right package...

In fact, it's maintainer's duty to re-assign the bug if it's the wrong
package... don't worry :)

> a common user who takes himself the time to report a bug could even think
> it's a bash bug (though a minor one in that case).

And, in fact, many bugs reported to bash are re-assigned by bash's maintainer
to bash-completion :)

> I think you developers/maintainers should be thankful when someone reports a
> bug,

We *are* thankful!

> instead of complaining about mistakes in the bug report

Those *were* *not* complains... just suggestions.

> and arguing I deliberately raised the bug severity in hope to get faster
> attention.

It wasn't your case, it was a "general concept": it has happened that users
raised the severity to get more attention... I excuse myself (and Neil, I
suppose) if this wasn't clear :(

> I've read the reportbug instructions and thought twice about what severity to
> choose and finally I choose what seemed the best fit based on my
> observations. Is the "grave" severity badly described in reportbug? Fix it!
> You are the developers after all! </rant>

Probably it's badly described, after all ;)

> Anyway, I don't understand how that can be a bug of a different package, but, 
> again, I take your word.

bash_completion, besides the code in /etc/bash_completion itself, can read the
code from files in /etc/bash_completion.d/, and *any* package can install files
there (i.e. can provide completions for bash...)

> @David: I did not hack my code, I suppose that "-sh" is not to be looked for 
> inside the code, but I think it's only the interpreter of the script. Maybe 
> the users on that server have /bin/sh as default shell, I can't check right 
> now. Maybe also I'm saying meaningless things...

Oh well, that would print "sh" instead of "-sh" in the error messages... am I
wrong?

Please, provide the info Neil asked ASAP :)

Kindly,
David

-- 
 . ''`.  Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/bash-completion-devel/attachments/20080911/01648b3f/attachment-0001.pgp