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

Re: divergence from upstream as a bug

Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm not sure whether you mean bug in the strict sense or in the BTS's
> sense. Do you think a divergence is a minor bug or a wishlist "bug"? I
> disagree that any divergence is a bug, but there may be a request to get
> rid of a divergence.

I won't speak for Joey, but I consider a divergence a bug in the sense
that I'd use with a general bug-tracking system: it's something about the
package and/or the packaged software that, in an ideal world, would be
improved.  Nothing more (or less) than that.

The severity of the bug depends on how serious the divergence from
upstream is.  For example, I would say that the divergence from OpenLDAP
upstream in how we handle libldap and libldap_r is normal or maybe even
important, since upstream strongly dislikes what we're doing (but we can't
find a better solution that works for what Debian needs and is acceptable
to upstream).  They may be very difficult bugs, but bugs aren't
necessarily things that are easy to fix, or that even will be fixed.  It's
a record of something that doesn't match the way the software *should* be
in an ideal world.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: