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

Re: bug #149713



On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 16:04 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 17:40 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > I don't think we can expect an extras packager to fix upstream bugs in the 
> > code, packagers deal with *packaging* bugs. If the packager *can* fix bugs 
> > (and certainly many can, to some extent at least) then fine, but me thinks 
> > things like this can safely be closed with "please report upstream 
> > instead" unless the bug is caused by FE-specific changes to the software.
> 
> In the case of _real_ bugs, I disagree. Part of the job of packaging is
> to make sure bugs get fixed and fed upstream. It's not just grunt-work.
ACK. In this case (if the reporter's description is correct - I did not
check the code.) it is a _real_ bug.

Ralf



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