[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Make Debian better (Re: Two Debian 3.0 reviews at Slashdot)



On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 18:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:21:00PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Whining about Debian developers whining about upstream implies that you
> > > expect Debian developers to fix every problem.  For instance, I suppose
> > 
> > My problem is some developers will tell the user to submit it
> > upstream, when my understanding is the devel is supposed to flag it as
> > upstream and go submit it upstream themselves, since they're supposed
> > to have an idea what bugs are upstream anyway, and know how to provide
> > more helpful input for upstream.
> 
> And sometimes the Debian developer can't really be helpful.
> 
> I, for instance, have *never* had any luck acting as a go-between for
> Debian users and upstream XFree86 problems.  The upstream XFree86 guys
> *always* seem to want to deal with the user directly.
> 
> This, and the lack of a bug tracking system for the XFree86 Project,  is
> why I don't mark XFree86 bugs as forwarded in the Debian BTS.
> 
> I enjoy what I think is a good working relationship with XFree86
> upstream despite the fact that the Developers' Reference tells me to do
> things differently than I do.  It is better to be accomodating of
> upstream than to mindlessly adhere to a Debian-specific best practices
> document.  In this case, our users are better served the way I'm doing
> it, because that's how XFree86 wants to handle things.  Who am I to tell
> them to change their ways?
> 
> -- 
> G. Branden Robinson                |       Convictions are more dangerous
> Debian GNU/Linux                   |       enemies of truth than lies.
> branden@debian.org                 |       -- Friedrich Nietzsche
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

I would also interject that sometimes, particularly when dealing with
package maintainers looking after numerous diverse packages, tracking
the design details of every aspect of each package *may not* be a
reasonable expectation, and particularly when the bug is unclear in its
nature or source, it is better to have upstream ask the questions to get
a clear description of what is happening, especially when a user hasn't
*quite* explained it clearly.

My understanding is that the original intention of the Debian BTS was to
be about packaging bugs - it has evolved beyond that partly as it is
handy to report any bugs, and for users that don't recognise the
difference between distributions and developers of specific software
(which *does* on occasion happen amongst Debian users,) it can be the
only address available to pass on problems, whether actually appropriate
or not.

I don't fault the *two routes* approach to kicking bugs upstream. So
long as it is effective, it is all part of the bazaar approach of Free &
Open Source sorfware and the volunteer nature of Debian.
-- 
Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP
ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting
Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935
Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: