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

Debian social contract - who reports bugs upstream?

I read this at http://www.debian.org/social_contract :

2 We will give back to the free software community

When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream" authors of works included in our system.

It appears that there have been problems with gnu-fdisk that weren't passed upstream to the mailing list bug-fdisk@gnu.org - archived at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-fdisk/ including Debian bug 464720 which was only passed upstream by myself (and promptly fixed by the author). There were very few Debian bugs reported against gnu-fdisk and 464720 was already several months old when I added to the initial report.

I've cc:'d nnnnnn@bugs.debian.org when an upstream author posts a fix to a Debian bug report that I've submitted, but wondered why the Debian package maintainers hadn't submitted the bug report upstream.

Some packages (e.g. ALSA-related) suggest directly contacting upstream if the problem isn't Debian packaging, but other packages seem to have the implicit understanding that the package maintainer(s) will report Debian user bug reports upstream if the problem is not purely a Debian packaging issue.

Are there any ways to improve the reporting of bugs upstream without over-burdening either the Debian package maintainers or the Debian end users?


Reply to: