Thursday, 16 March 2006 22:32, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Thursday 16 March 2006 15:06, Alex Nordstrom wrote: > > No, bugs in Debian should be reported through the Debian BTS. That, > > incidentally, is what it's there for. > > BUT it's a lot more efficient al around for the user to file upstream > bugs upstream in the first place: > - it facilitates direct communication, having discussions through a > middleman is usually not constructive to having things fixed (and > will surely slow things down) That's one way of looking at it. The other way to look at it is that package maintainers generally have a better understanding than users of what information upstream maintainers look for in bug reports. They'll also have communicated with upstream in the past, which often means they have better rapport with them. > Filing obviously > non-debian-specific bugs upstream instead of debian BTS is a > relatively easy way for ordinary users to make things easy on the > debian-kde team, leaving them more time to work on Debian specific > bugs (which improves things for everyone). How does one tell what is an "obviously non-Debian-specific bug"? Users rarely know which changes package maintainers make, and hardly ever have the means to get a picture of what impact those changes have. For example, in the issue in question here, without looking at the code, I can't say for sure that the problem isn't caused by, say, a configuration file holding the default printing time span that's not where it's supposed to be because the package maintainers changed its location. > Exactly why do you have a problem with the _suggestion_ of filing > bugs like this upstream? Mainly because the suggestion neglected to mention that this is an ad-hoc workaround, not the way things *ought* to work. This thread has now brought out a more complete picture of the situation, which I think is good. -- Alex Nordstrom http://lx.n3.net/ Please do not CC me in followups; I am subscribed to debian-kde.
Attachment:
pgpHs4rei5C4v.pgp
Description: PGP signature