On 12/13/2010 05:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jiri Moskovcak wrote: >> This is not a first time when in see this idea and was already answered >> - we're the distro and we're responsible for the packages, filling all >> bugs to the upstream will make more harm then good - e.g. crash caused >> by our patch or by some library which has different upstream or the bug >> is already fixed in the new upstream version which is not updated in our >> repositories... and these problems are for maintainers to decide before >> they forward the ticket to the upstream... > > It probably depends on the software (I know that GCC developers, for > instance, want issues encountered with distro packages to get filed on > distro trackers), but e.g. Gnash upstream wants to hear about the crashes in > their software, whereas I don't, because unfortunately I really have no way > to debug and fix all those crashes. I could spend some time on one or two > arbitrary ones, but that wouldn't help getting all the others fixed. > > Kevin Kofler > - just to make sure we're on the same page - I'm not completely against this idea and in fact ABRT was design to be able to this (report bugs in different packages to a different bug trackers), right now I see following problems 1. Reporting directly to upstream may upset some them - if we have some policy for that and maintainers negotiate this with upstream before we start filling their bugzilla, then we should be ok.. - and maybe we can draw some more attention (and devels..) to ABRT ;-) 2. someone will have to write the specific reporter plugin for reporting to different upstream bugtrackers... right now ABRT, can report to: bugzilla, kerneloops, e-mail, ftp (btw even 2 bugzillas don't speak the same XMLRPC :() J. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
