[arch-dev-public] Upstream bug closures

Andreas Radke a.radke at arcor.de
Mon Nov 9 13:49:27 EST 2009

Am Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:27:44 +0100
schrieb Andrea Scarpino <andrea at archlinux.org>:

> On 09/11/2009, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> > I see a lot of bugs getting closed with "Upstream" lately because
> > they're not packaging bugs. This is not the way to solve bugs. The
> > only bugs that should be closed upstream are the ones in binary
> > modules like flashplugin or nvidia binary drivers. Opensource
> > software can be fixed or debugged, so we should do that instead of
> > using this bogus closure option.
> I agree with you here. We should debug or fix software issues (I
> closed 30 minutes ago an upstream bug about sonata, but I will
> investigate on that), anyway the recent closed bugs are about kernel
> and some devices and I do not know how many of us are kernel
> developers.

A can't completely agree on that. While it is ok to keep such a bug
open the debugging and fixing should be done in the upstream
bugtracker not in our one.

Our users too often expect the packager (or the one who helped
out) to solve configuration problems, debug code and fix the bug or do
the upstream communication. I can't do this and don't want to do this
for all my packages. It's already hard enough to follow all the mailing
lists to see major changes and where our packaging is affected.

I'm not interested to do upstream work where I don't want to. I'm just a
packager for Arch Linux.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list