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

Re: Debian social contract - who reports bugs upstream?


On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +1030, Arthur Marsh wrote:
> I read this at http://www.debian.org/social_contract :
> 2 We will give back to the free software community


> 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.

Since Debian bug 464720 is for gnash, I bet you are talking #463720.

> I've cc:'d nnnnnn@bugs.debian.org when an upstream author posts a fix to  

You mean CCed 463720@bugs.debian.org .

> a Debian bug report that I've submitted, but wondered why the Debian  
> package maintainers hadn't submitted the bug report upstream.

Because he thought he can fix it and report it quickly, your mail might
have been missed by DD's mail box due to bad spam filter, or he was lazy
to read your bug report ... I do not know. 

> 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.

This is right action by DD.

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

I think what you did seems very good action.


PS: I head from gnu-fdisk maintainer that gnu-fdisk upstream is MIA.
    Then there have een actions and new upload with patch.

Reply to: