On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 05:09:16 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 03:57:47 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> >
> > > [...] Fedora does not need a confusing sitation
> > > where you don't know where a package comes from if people paste you screen
> > > output or look at your package list.
> > >
> > > In a lot of postings people could indicate what the problem was by the
> > > initial posting, I don't want to ask people to do a rpm -qa --qf
> > > '%{name} %{vendor}\n' to eventually get the right information.
> >
> > Then supply them with the right tools which aid them in collecting the
> > relevant information about their installation.
>
> Why ? It would still require me to tell him in a seperate mail to run
> something. In most cases this is obsolete as the right information (with
> the error) was copy&pasted.
That is because there is no convenient bug reporting interface, but only
the purely web-based forms of Bugzilla, where users are expected to enter
details manually and decide themselves what might be important.
> I want this information in /var/log/rpmpkgs too, or in rpm -qa
That's feasible. I'm an advocate of queries like "rpm -qa --last|head"
and would appreciate even more verbose, but easier to do queries.
Based on internally stored vendor, distribution and signature
information (all are available already!), you could even log information
whether the installation is tainted, and sort all packages by their
origin.