Re: Debian bugs belong to the Debian BTS
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > This is ludicrous. There is no advantage to anyone if obvious
> > upstream issues pass through debian BTS. Packaging bugs
> > to debian BTS, upstream bugs to upstream BTS. If unsure,
> > to debian BTS.
> Reporting upstream is not always easy. E.g. the KDE bug system knows nothing
> about kgpgcertmanager but a package of this name exists.
that's why I said if unsure, debian BTS.
> The only thing I found was:
> The bug there is closed and kgpgcertmanager still _always_ crashes. So, it is
> not obvious if this is a packaging or upstream problem. Maybe you can tell, I
This appears to be the same bug, and for some weird reason this has been
marked invalid/closed. They seem to suggest that it is a cryptlug bug.
anyway, kmail encryption features are kinda useless without
pinentry/gpg-agent in sid...
> I would then have to file the bug upstream against kmail? kgpgcertmanager does
> not even depend on kmail. And now?
I've never used kgpgcertmanager anywhere else than via the kmail menus, so
the kmail/encryption target would be natural target for me...
kgpgcertmanager could recommend atleast kmail as there is not much use
for it without it.
> BTW: Is there any way to get the upstream maintainer email address or URL
> without downloading the source package?
the copyright file or google search... however, most upstream authors do
not wish to be contacted directly to private email.
Riku Voipio | email@example.com |
kirkkonummentie 33 | +358 40 8476974 --+--
02140 Espoo | |
dark> A bad analogy is like leaky screwdriver |