Re: Bug Reporting system
Steve Greenland wrote:
> On Jul 26, Goswin Brederlow <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Have the architecture as default and if it is a general bug the
> > maintainer can forward it to all other or to a main bug list.
> Ok, so we'll have a system where almost all bugs have to be handled
> twice: once by the non-existent "architecture maintainer", and then on
> to the "main" maintainer. This makes a *lot* of sense.
I've abandoned the architecture maintainers, cause to many people/thinks
speak against it. And from the above you can see that bugs would be send
to the REAL maintainer and to the debin-arch list. The i386 guys
wouldn't be bothered by bugreports on the m68k kernel, install disks and
many other thinks on base that isn't working right. There where many
mails about bugs on the debian-m68k list and nearly non in the bugreport
system. What do we have the bugreport system for if other archs can't
use it properly?
> I maintain (not as well as I'd like) three packages - cron, nvi, and
> cern-httpd. Many bugs have be reported against them over the last couple
> of years. Not one has been an architecture specific bug. (Nope, take
> that back. One of the people who was compiling a bunch of stuff for
> 68k found a problem in the rules file for one program. But no *user*
> has reported an arch. spec. bug).
> Above and beyond that, I'd bet most "architecture" bugs are packaging
> problems - primarily because the most recent compile is a release or so
> behind - out of date dependencies, etc.
Yes, most of the time it's just some stupid little bug in the
dependencies or wrong version. User who experience this problem can't do
a bug report (because it's not a bug of the i386 source), can't contact
the guy who has compiled the package, has the source and knows it (at
least a bit) and you can't expect beginers (who probably use a unix for
the first time in there life) to download all the developement packages
and the source over there 14.4 modem, compile and build a package and
upload it again.
> The reality is that most of us are run x86 based machines. There are
> a few people doing a tremendous amount of work to keep the other
> architecture binaries up to date. Don't bother them with minutae.
> the bug to the standard place. If you think it's arch. specific, tell
> me. If you use 'bug', I'm pretty sure the arch. you're using shows up.
> If I can't duplicate it, I'll be back in touch.
Yes, the arch shows of at the bottom (if one uses bug), together with
the kernel version.
> If it's something that you can fix, like a broken dependency, *you* can
> download the source package, build it for your architecture, and upload
> it for others. It's easy, it's fun.
> There is zero need for an architecture specific bug system (at least
> at this point in time).
May the source be with you.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .