On 25 Apr 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > There's a good reason. > > First, it is the sort of thing that might well be correctly solved in > the Debian package and not upstream; that is, the best solution might > be to provide a Debian upgrade path rather than a Gnome upgrade path. >
I agree. Those are the little "value-added" things a Debian package adds to the raw source. And it sounds like this is a trivial kind of thing to fix. At the very least the maintainer should have a debconf screen popup that says "Use KDE!" :-) > Second, I can't keep track of who "upstream" is for all the Debian > packages. > Why not? It's in the copyright file of each package. If it isn't--that's a bug. Zhaoway is right that you're a big boy and can talk to upstream developers without having to go through a middleman. > Third, the BTS is an exceptionally useful placeholder for "work needed > here". If the bug remains open in the BTS, then it serves to indicate > the existence of the problem until its solved, and someone might > actually fix it. With Christian Marillat's excessively eager > bug-closing, one would never even know of such things. > This is true as well. What is the point of a bug tracking system if not to track bugs. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>