On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:25:40PM -0600, Robin wrote: > Chris Cheney (ccheney@cheney.cx) wrote on 03:51:51PM 08/03/04: > > You filed this bug yourself and don't realize it is an upstream issue? > > I assume no one ended up actually forwarding it to upstream yet since it > > still appears in KDE 3.2.1, but it definitely is not a packaging issue. > > There have been many other packages with this same kind of bug, and in > almost all cases it was agreed that is is a packaging issue -- and > subsequently fixed in the Debian packaging. What makes you say it is > different in this case? Marking it as an upstream bug would imply that > you want upstream to fix Debian policy violations, which doesn't seem > right to me. All previous issues with non-weak symbols that I know about have been dealt with by their upstream authors, including other KDE packages. Since non-weak symbols breaks prelinking which iirc is primary reason for making it a debian policy issue most other distributions would want those problems fixed as well. > Also, *I* did not tag it as upstream, and I don't really agree that it is > an upstream issue. Since you tagged it as upstream yourself I assumed you > had filed an appropriate bug report on bugs.kde.org, but apparently that > is not the case. Just the part of KDE that I attempt to take care of has over 600 open bugs, I can't triage all of the upstream KDE bugs filed in Debian BTS myself, especially when I can't even reproduce a vast majority of the bugs. I have asked numerous times in the past if anyone wants to take over part or all of KDE and no one seems to want it. So when I see bugs that I know for a fact are upstream related I tag them as upstream so when I have more time, or someone else does, the bug can be forwarded to upstream KDE BTS. Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature