On Thursday 16 March 2006 15:06, Alex Nordstrom wrote:
> Thursday, 16 March 2006 21:40, Frans Pop wrote:
> > This is not something that can be solved by Debian though. I suggest
> > checking if this issue has already been reported in the KDE bug
> > tracking system [1] and, if not, filing a bug report there.
>
> No, bugs in Debian should be reported through the Debian BTS. That,
> incidentally, is what it's there for.
>
> See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/10/msg01235.html
There's nothing wrong with filing upstream bugs in Debian BTS, and the
maintainer should pass on such bugs upstream (it's not doing the latter
that the mail you referred to disagrees with).
BUT it's a lot more efficient al around for the user to file upstream bugs
upstream in the first place:
- it facilitates direct communication, having discussions through a
middleman is usually not constructive to having things fixed (and will
surely slow things down)
- We now that the Debian-kde team has repeatedly said that they don't have
the necessary manpower to deal with the volume of bugs that routinely
playing middleman would lead to. Filing obviously non-debian-specific bugs
upstream instead of debian BTS is a relatively easy way for ordinary users
to make things easy on the debian-kde team, leaving them more time to work
on Debian specific bugs (which improves things for everyone).
Exactly why do you have a problem with the _suggestion_ of filing bugs like
this upstream?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpgvnJBuvMkY.pgp
Description: PGP signature