I am experiencing a bug in Ubuntu. Since they are switching to Malone, I entered the bug here. One of the first questions asked by Malone was "Which package?" (This was accompanied by text that said this was a *required* entry field.)
Well, I am NOT a developer. What I put into that field was the name of the package that supplied the program that gave me an error message when trying to "load" some tables. But I suspect that it was not the fault of THAT program. but rather the fault of whatever originally *built* those tables. And not being a developer, I have NO IDEA which "package" was responsible for the content of those tables.
What I am pointing out here is that not everyone who finds a bug has the knowledge to IDENTIFY the "package that needs to be fixed". Let me suggest that the text for that entry allow specifying "not identified" as a valid input for that field.
I am experiencing a bug in Ubuntu. Since they are switching to Malone, I entered the bug here. One of the first questions asked by Malone was "Which package?" (This was accompanied by text that said this was a *required* entry field.)
Well, I am NOT a developer. What I put into that field was the name of the package that supplied the program that gave me an error message when trying to "load" some tables. But I suspect that it was not the fault of THAT program. but rather the fault of whatever originally *built* those tables. And not being a developer, I have NO IDEA which "package" was responsible for the content of those tables.
What I am pointing out here is that not everyone who finds a bug has the knowledge to IDENTIFY the "package that needs to be fixed". Let me suggest that the text for that entry allow specifying "not identified" as a valid input for that field.
mikus