On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:19:21 +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote: > I recently looked at bug pages for some packages the testing version of > which is rather outdated, notably mozilla. Mozilla in testing is still > back to 2:1.0.0.woody.1.0. When I read the bug reports that appear to be > the blockers, I found that many of them were rather unspecific and > unreproducible with the latest Mozilla from unstable.
Note that bug reports with severity > import are not the sole reason a package isn't percolating to testing; see http://www.debian.org/devel/testing for details. > There were several reports saying that "Mozilla sucks and it crashes on > http://wwww.foobar.com";. I visited the mentioned pages and found that > Mozilla 1.2.1 didn't crash at all. Therefore I submitted additional > comments to the respective bug reports, suggesting to close them. In general I'd recommend trying to get the original submitter of the bug report to confirm the problem is no longer repeatable. In the meantime, it often makes sense to tag such bug reports as "unreproducible" and "moreinfo" and possibly lowering their severity. All this can be done by non-developers (see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control), but should be done wisely and preferably with the blessing of the maintainer of the package at hand. HTH, Ray -- I'm really not a very nice person. I can say "I don't care" with a straight face, and really mean it. Linus Torvalds on the linux-kernel list
