On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 21:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Aaron Konstam wrote: > > > Not paraphrasing. The bug was on the firefox configuration supplied with > > FC6. Suggestion was that I file the bug on mozilla bugzilla. Since then > > they have fixed the problem in firefox2. Look at bug: 227405 > > You said Red Hat told you it was not its problem and to go complain to > someone else. Just to confirm are you talking about > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227405. Maybe you > are misunderstanding what is being said there. All there is a request to > verify against the updates, file a bug report upstream and pass it on > the package maintainer for it to be tracked locally. > > Even when Red Hat is the upstream maintainer for non-packaging specific > bugs, it is better to file bugs upstream. There are muliple reasons > including the factor the there is bound to be better exposure and more > people working on a upstream project compared to a distribution package. > > Rahul > This is partially my fault. What I am reporting is not an upstream problem. Mozilla is perfectly capable of doing what I want it to do if I change the config option indicated. It is a problem with how firefox is distributed by the rpm created I assume by fedora. I am asking that fedora repackage a existing rpm. I am completely updated. A new firefox came last week (1.5.0.10) but I can't tell if this correction was made. It is not an upstream problem also since firefox2 as far as I can tell does not have this problem. But the responder to the bugzilla did not say they would deal with the problem in FC6. So in effect they as I said sent the complaint somewhere else (what you are calling upstream). -- ======================================================================= Where there is much light there is also much shadow. -- Goethe ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
