Hello, On 2009 m. April 9 d., Thursday 04:14:26 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > Another good reason to file bugs that affect Debian in the DBTS even if > they are already upstream: apt-listbugs. As I said, RC (grave, serious, critical) should end up in Debian BTS as they are likely to affect many Debian users and even do harm. That's fine. > If Debian can't shoulder the burden of maintaining KDE, they shouldn't be > packaging it. Debian maintainers should be ready to receive bug reports > from Debian users. I should not have to run another distribution or > compile KDE from source before I file a bug. Well, I will clarify you a few facts now: 1) If you report an obvious(!!!) upstream bug to Debian BTS which is of non-RC severity, the most attention you will probably get is a forwarded tag being added (if you are lucky). 2) We will probably never forward a new upstream bug reported to the Debian BTS to KDE BTS (i.e. open a new bug) and we will not play proxy between the user and upstream. 3) If you don't like something, you can either: 3a) do the job in the areas which are lacking in your opinion (the world is not perfect). But please don't tell everybody else what to do. 3b) switch to something else where the job is done better. 4) By doing 1) and 2) you clutter Debian BTS and real bugs which could and should be solved locally in Debian get lost. > >As Sune said, it's impossible for the Debian people to handle this, > > No its not. It takes effort. But that effort is required of every Debian > maintainer. Can you think how fast a RFS on the debian-mentors list would > be denied if accompanied by "I won't have time to deal with bugs, please > file them all upstream."? KDE is not a 20K source package. KDE is HUGE. Please do some background research before telling something. > I am NOT saying I don't appreciate the effort the maintainers are putting > forth now. That's exactly what you are saying. > If I could get both my jobs and the development I do for my > local charity in hand, I'd pitch in and help. But, wrangling bugs is > *just* *as* *important* as packaging new versions. It may not be quite as > "sexy", but it makes for better software, not just more of it. Sorry, but you have no right to tell other volunteers what they have to do in their free time. You are free to do 3a) though (regularly). > According to the official documents, if you open a bug in the DBTS, you > should not open one upstream, but leave it up to the maintainer. Yeah, yeah, but you can spin official documents as much as you want. That BTS page is not more official than me telling you how things work currently. If you want an upstream bug to be solved, you better report it to KDE BTS. Or it won't be solved unless another user reports it upstream (as simple as that). > I get my OS from one source, the Debian repositories (and initially the > Debian cdimage ftp server). I should only need to provide feedback to one > source: Debian. Maintainers are ultimately responsible for what I receive; > *NOT* upstream. If you don't have enough time to *maintain* the package, > don't even bother packaging it. Lets file KDE removal bug then. I guess 100% of Debian users will be more happy with that than currently situation. > Again: "the whole thing" that I get is the Debian package, and the > maintainer is definitely involved in that. Again: try doing the real work first before telling others what to do. > As far as the effort required to wrangle the bugs, this can be spread out > by getting users involved. KDE itself has had some pretty good luck with > "Bug Day"s where users meet developers on IRC (or whatever) and > confirm/deny bugs, provide more details on how to reproduce, perhaps even > try out patches. > > Last time I took it on myself to update bugs, I got some fairly stern > emails indicating that changes need to go through the maintainers, but I am > willing to help. So I say, HELP HELP HELP. Nobody is going to object. -- Modestas Vainius <modestas@vainius.eu>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.