Quoting Steve Langasek (firstname.lastname@example.org): > A single package I'm comaintainer of that has a backports.org backport has > received at least 12 bug reports to the BTS over the past year referencing > bpo versions (not counting any that might have been retargeted using > found/notfound after being filed). The reason there are few bug reports on > the mailing list is because these *already* come to the BTS. Are you talking about samba, Steve? If so, you're right that we get some bug reports about our bpo packages....but it happens that backports are done by your comaintainer..:-)...and we already noticed several times that these bugs helped us (OK, often me, indeed) working on bugs on our testing packages. We even sometimes ask users who report issues on packages in stable to try teproducing them with backports;.:) So, in that case of a package where backports are very important to users, I think that having the bugs in the BTS is a benefit. It indeed goes along with the fact that the regular maintainers (at least one of them) cared enough abotu backports to do the work him|herself. If you're not talking about samba, then most of what I'm saying is not adapted. How about a kind of opt-in system where bugs sent to bpo packages would by default *not* be sent inserted in the BTS....unless the maintainer (the "official" one) accepts this. That could be done with a special control field in debian/control of the backported package (that would assume some kind of pre-agreement between the main maintainer and the backport uploader).
Description: Digital signature