Re: Funny situation with Licq.
* Kirk Strauser
| Tollef Fog Heen <tollef@add.no> writes:
|
| > However, it's bad coding practice not to fix bugs when you are
| > told about them, and there is an easy fix.
|
| I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm asking this seriously.
| Is it Zed's job to fix that bug, or is he responsible for making
| sure that the package has the latest fixes from upstream? If
| it's the former, then I agree with you, although I'm not sure
| how well this scales. If it's the latter, then should this have
| been a Debian bug in the first place, or should it have been
| reported directly to the Licq authors?
Since the BTS is used for all kinds of bugs (how should a user know if
the bug is in some Debian-specific patches or in the upstream
source?), this is a 'Debian bug' and the proper place to report it is
the BTS.
As I see it - if the bug is in the upstream source, the bug report
should be reported upstream. If the maintainer knows how to fix it, I
would find it natural that he sends a patch along with his bug
report. Since the maintainer may get more bug reports before the bug
is fixed upstream and a fix/new version released, I would fix the
debian package.
I see that I'm not really answering your question - Zed's job is to
make sure his packages has as few bugs as possible. If he does this
by fixing the sources and reporting the fixes upstream, reporting the
bugs upstream and then waiting for a fix, or something entirely else
is something which I don't care about as long as the bug gets
squashed.
As long as the bug is real, closing the bug without a fix is the wrong
solution.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.
Reply to: