> For reports forwarded upstream it is certainly useful to subscribe to > the upstream report as well. I will plan on doing this in the future. > This particular report was erreanously forwarded with a -quiet > submitter address, so I didn't notice much progress, however I did > check that the source isn't available anymore at the specified > address, so it's not reproducible anymore. You're right that the source isn't in the exact same place on cedar-solutions.com any more, because that APT repository got rearranged. And, no, I wouldn't expect you to dig around the website to find it's new location. However, it would have been nice if you had asked me where it was before closing the bug saying "no longer available". I would have to told you it was in Debian proper, and that it still existed upstream. I don't want to argue about this. I've made my point, and I'll shut up now. > > You're right, that won't help the GCC folks, but it should help the > > Debian folks whose bug we're talking about (again, I was under the > > assumption that someone other than me was managing this bug). > > No, I wouldn't have time for anything else if I would do this. As the recent debian-devel discussion shows, there does not seem to be a consensus on how maintainers will manage upstream bugs, and that means that no one really knows what to expect. Since I continue to manage my own upstream bugs in my packages, I assumed the same was happening here. I respectfully suggest that you make this circumstance explicit with future bugs that you submit upstream. A quick note to me and the bug saying: I've forwarded this upstream and I won't have much time to manage it closely in the future; please track the bug with upstream yourself let me know if there's anything else you need from me. would have avoided this confusion. > try to run/build it with gcc-snapshot. If it's not a regression > compared to a former gcc version, it probably won't be fixed in > gcc-3.3. it may be fixed in 3.4, if you provide information on: > > - the gcc versions you tested with (3.3.2 and mainline aka > gcc-snapshot) > > - the NBIO version/sources used. something preprocessed might be > difficult in this case, but at least a location, where the sources > can be fetched without debian specific tools. > > - the flags used to compile > > - the testcase, which fails. Understood. I'll try to come up with a more minimal test case and attach it to the upstream bug. Thanks for your time, KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpuqJDaGTWGY.pgp
Description: PGP signature