[arch-dev-public] Upstream bug closures

James Rayner james at archlinux.org
Tue Nov 10 01:59:39 EST 2009

> Jan de Groot 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 if a package is actually broken then the bug report should
> remain open with a link to the upstream bug report so that a patch can
> be pulled when this is fixed upstream.

Just an example of when to not close something as upstream. I have a bug
assigned to me, with a patch available, for a project that isn't very
actively maintained. Someone closed the bug as 'upstream'. This, doesn't
really work well, because new releases are unlikely/uncommon, and a patch
is available.

The other case where closing bugs as upstream is bad, is when the bug is
not upstream. I have at least once had a packaging error closed as

If anyone is to close a bug as upstream, I suggest it should be the
maintainer of the package as they are most likely to appreciate the
situation best. A broad policy on upstream packages is unlikely to work
due to the variations in each case - rather maintainer intuition is best.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list