We need a new subject- bug fixes

[Rahul Sundaram]

Aaron Konstam wrote:

> 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.

Fedora generally doesnt deviate from upstream defaults. So what 
configuration upstream ships with indeed does matter here.

> It is not an upstream problem also since firefox2 as far as I can tell
> does not have this problem.

Sure but they still support Firefox 1.5 so it remains something upstream 
  can deal with.

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)

The responder cannot determine that without upstream being involved. If 
you concerns, you should at the minimum continue the discussion in the 
bug report.  Otherwise we would need to the patch packages. Patching 
tends to cut down agility since for every update the patch needs 
additional maintenance and the fix becomes distribution specific instead 
of being shared work common to everyone.

Asking you to update, provide a upstream upstream and report back to the 
distribution is not equivalent to telling you the complaint elsewhere 
(though I can see the comparison). It will still be tracked by Fedora. 
Only that Fedora wont be the only place where it is tracked. By the way 
this is pretty much common practice in all distributions. I will also 
probably write down the benefits of reporting bugs upstream somewhere 
prominent in the wiki to help understand what I described here.

Rahul