On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Chris Waters wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 07:39:13PM -0500, Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote: > > > If Debian decides that bug reports should go to Debian unless > > we've modified the package, that's what we'll do. > > We have no control over it. If evil-third-party Debian reseller > decides they want the bug reports, they hack the bug reporting tools > to override the fields in the packages, and viola, they hoard all > the bug-reports they want.
Yes, but a good system would hopefully leave them with no incentive to do so. It seems the big argument here is really over where bug reports should go first, whether the fact that modifications in some packages may cause apparent bugs in unmodified packages should cause all bug report from dists that used modified packages to be kept out of the main bts, or not, etc. Personally, I want all bugs that get filed against my packages on any debian derived system to go to the main line bts. If the reports themselves can get tagged with a 'comes-from-derived-system' flag that is great, it gives more information to bts users and helps me. In theory I will be looking at these bugs regularly, and if I can't duplicate the problem I can communicate with the vendor of the derived system. Now, if the report also automaticly goes to the vendor, I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact I would prefer it to go both places. Why should anyone have to be left out? The only problem then is that bugs may be fixed in one system, but still linger on in other tracking systems, potentially causing work duplication. The solution is to include with the report a list of all the places the problem has been reported to, so the people ultimately responsible for the package in their derived distributions know where to look to see if the problem has already been fixed. Or is the whole idea of forking bug reports considered heresy? Britton
