Re: Bug Reporting system
On Jul 26, Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de> 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.
<SARCASM>
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.
</SARCASM>
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behind - out of date dependencies, etc.
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. Report
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.
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).
Steve
--
The Mole - I think, therefore I scream
"There's this to say for blood and breath,
They give a man a taste for death."
[Housman]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: