On So, 2010-02-07 at 09:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 02/07/2010 03:15 AM, Karel Klic wrote: > > Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote: > >>> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I > >>> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the > >>> report should go directly to upstream. Bothering the maintainer first > >>> instead of upstream is not the right thing to do. > >> > >> +1, in fact that's the biggest design failure in ABRT (in its current state) > >> and basically makes it useless. Gathering backtraces is something that needs > >> to be handled by upstream projects (like KDE does with KCrash/DrKonqi), not > >> distributions. > > To end-users, it's irrelevant "who is supposed to fix something". Their > complaints are against the product call Fedora and thus expect "Fedora > to fix their product". > > That said: It's irrelevant to Toyota car owners, which supplier > manufactured the parts which have caused Toyota to call back 1000 of > their cars - To them it's Toyota who is reponisible, and Toyota's duty > to fix this issue. But Toyota's employees do not do that after work in their free time. They get paid for it. If someone is paying me to fix bugs for upstream that's fine and I will try to fix every reported bug. I guess a lot of Fedora package maintainers do their packaging stuff in their spare free time and would say it is not the right thing to offload the work to them. The analogy between Toyota and Fedora does not convince me ;-) cheers, Stefan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
