> Mat has an important point here. Too often, I've seen: "I'm sorry > about the bugs you've encountered post-install. It sounds like the > install itself went fine. I'm closing this report." Usually, the > person making the report doesn't have a clue about the fine points of > which package team is responsible for the bug she has encountered. > The person best able to make that determination is the person who > fields the installation report. But it seems that person can't be > bothered to pass the report along, and feels no responsibility to try. I am afraid this is most of the time incorrect. I have even seen closed install reports reopened by Frans, in particular, and reassigned to the relevant package. I suggest you have a look at the various xorg packages bug log, for instance, and track down issues that have been initially reported as install reports. Nothing is perfect when it comes at install reports handling. Such reports are sent for more than 3 years now and the number is very high. Processing them is a very time-consuming task, which D-I team members do as best as they can. The job of reassigning bug reports outside the D-I team maintained area needs a very wide knowledge of Debian in general, an experience that is a very "expensive" ressource (I know about 3-4 people in the D-I team who would qualify for this). Up to now, no perfect solution has been found to guarantee that an issue reported outside the scope of D-I will be reassigned to the correct package. However, I think we can tell that the most important issues are handled, which is already a pretty good result with the not so unlimited manpower we have. Of course, the team is opened to suggestions...and help, in that work. In contrary to what has been suggested by this thread, the D-I team is one of the most opened teams in Debian (actually most maintenance teams in the project are very opened....essentially because we're certainly facing a scaling problem in the whole project).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature