On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 16:17 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > I don't want to start a long thread, but just to ask a couple questions for > my > own clarification. Does a maintainer's responsibilities end with packaging > bugs? IOW, if there is a problem in the package that is _broken code_ do they > need to do something about it or is it acceptable for them to close the bug > and say talk to upstream?
There are _some_ kinds of bug (feature requests, etc.) which it's reasonable for any decent maintainer to punt upstream. There are other kinds of bugs (crashes, security issues -- perhaps even _anything_ that's a real bug rather than an RFE) which the maintainer really _ought_ to deal with directly. Opinions vary on precisely where the boundary between those classes should be, but I'm fairly adamant it should be 'RFE vs. bug'. Any packager who _isn't_ capable of handling the latter class of bug probably shouldn't be maintaining the package without the assistance of a co-packager or their sponsor. Note that you don't _have_ to be able to code to handle a real bug in an acceptable fashion -- decent coordination with upstream can be perfectly sufficient, if upstream are responsive enough. But just closing the bug in our bugzilla as 'upstream' is rarely acceptable for a _real_ bug, IMHO. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
