Bug#474964: Handling bugs properly (Was: Bug#474964: ...)
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: Debian Developers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Bug#474964: Handling bugs properly (Was: Bug#474964: ...)
- From: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:40:47 +0200 (CEST)
- Message-id: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0804181412130.11061@wr-linux02>
- Reply-to: Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <handler.474964.D474964.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20080409075948.GA25419@stro.at> <20080408080216.11267.94047.reportbug@wr-linux02> <handler.474964.D474964.email@example.com>
I want to hear your opinion about the following question: If you think
a bug does not belong to your package, do you think it is your duty as a
maintainer to reassign to bug to the package it belongs to or do you
think just closing the bug is fine?
My understanding of handling bugs is that a bug report has to stay open
as long as the problem exists. If I'm positive that the problem does not
belong to my package but I have no idea which package is really causing
the problem I just ask for help here to do a proper reassignment.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 I filed #474964 against linux-2.6:
Loads pcspkr and others even if explicitely excluded in modprobe.conf
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:59:48 GMT, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
It has been closed by maximilian attems <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
closing as not a kernel bug anyway.
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:57:03 GMT I reopened asking for proper reassigning.
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:12:05 GMT another attempt to close this bug was
done by "Bastian Blank" <email@example.com>
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:24:02 GMT I played another Ping in the funny
Ping-Pong-game. Obviosely kernel maintainers lost their interest in
this little game and seem to ignore the bug from now on.
Well, I for myself know how to work around problems of this kind. I
have no trouble to kick the unwanted modules out anyhow. But I thought
our users deserve a system that works as it is described in the docs
and I feel the kernel team considers reassigning boring enough to
refuse to do this.
If anybody would confirm that this problem might belong to module-init-tools
I would volunteer to take over the job of proper reassignment - but I
just don't know exactly and "my experts in questions like this" just
refuse proper communication.