[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#189157: marked as done (www.debian.org: Bugs: Reporting: It is not clear how/if bugs are forwarded upstream)

Your message dated Mon, 28 May 2007 07:08:20 -0700
with message-id <20070528140820.GB8680@volo.donarmstrong.com>
and subject line Forwarding section resolved
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Subject: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting: It is not clear how/if bugs are forwarded upstream
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2003-04-15
Severity: normal

Hello,

While reporting several bugs I often wondered if the bugs are forwarded to
the upstream developers by the package maintainer, or if I should do this
myself. I have found out that the tag upstream means the bug is not debian
specific, and that the tag forwarded means that the bug has been forwarded
to upstream developers. I think this should be described at:
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

Furthermore, it seems there is no policy/guideline about when a bug should
be forwarded upstream. Should the bugreporter do this? Should the package
maintainer do this? Should there be a guideline/policy about this at all?
Maybe this should be discussed at a mailing list. The outcome of this
discussion should be described as well on:
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

I mention this since I think bugs should be reported to the distribution
because it could be distribution specific, security reasons, data corruption
etc. At the same time bugs should be known by the upstream authors. It seems
upstream authors are more likely to fix bugs since they have more experience
with the inner working of the software in most cases. But if this procedure
is not clear, there is a risk that a bug is duplicated by the original
reporter, and by the package maintainer in the upstream bug database.

I am not sure if the priority of normal is in place for this bug.

Cheers,
Remco.

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux seesink 2.4.20 #1 Sun Feb 2 20:42:08 CET 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
This issue has been resolved by the following: 

Index: Reporting.wml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/Bugs/Reporting.wml,v
retrieving revision 1.50
diff -u -r1.50 Reporting.wml
--- Reporting.wml       25 May 2007 21:59:29 -0000      1.50
+++ Reporting.wml       28 May 2007 14:05:32 -0000
@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
 (such as mailing lists), you shouldn't use the usual e-mail headers, but
 <a href="#xcc">a different method, described below</a>.</p>
 
+<p>If you file a bug in Debian, you should not also file a bug against
+the upstream package, as it is possible that the bug exists only in
+Debian. If necessary, the maintainer of the package will forward the
+bug upstream.</p>
+
 
 <h2>Sending the bug report using an automatic bug report tool</h2>
 


-- 
Identical parts aren't.
 -- Beach's Law

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--- End Message ---
Reply to: