On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 22:33:14 +0300 "Andrej N. Gritsenko" <and...@rep.kiev.ua> wrote:
> >>The version libfm 0.1.17 > >> and pcmanfm 0.9.10 have few tens of critical bugs. Some of them are: > > >None of which appear to have been filed against the Debian packages. It > >could be that no-one else has experienced such problems or the > >problems do not affect Debian. > > I suppose it's just because people submit bugreports directly into > pcmanfm bugtracker instead of bugreporting into debian. It's may be my > classification of bugs is wrong - as developer I classify the bug being > critical if it hangs desktop, if application crashes, if an application > eats all available memory, etc. All those issues were caused and proven > to happen on debian (in fact, I fixed some of them exactly in debian > environment - on the "testing" distro). None of that normally matters but during a Debian release freeze, only bugs reported within Debian are going to affect packages moving into Debian testing during the freeze. Different users report bugs in different places - many users would not be comfortable setting up yet another account to use for the upstream bug trackers of the hundreds of packages installed on their machines. That's why we have the Debian BTS and Debian maintainers who can go to individual upstreams where that would be useful. Only a tiny fraction of bugs in the BTS ever get forwarded upstream. We also have other upstreams, like me, who push code to SF and freshmeat/freecode but use the Debian BTS as the upstream BTS. I'm upstream and maintainer for certain packages. If some random user/distribution comes to me and moans about a bug in an old version which I fixed in a more recent version then it's not my problem to go back to the old code or backport the change. I can choose to do that but the main goal will be to get the reporter to upgrade via whatever mechanisms are available. As upstream, I don't care what versions are packaged for Gentoo or Fedora or Ubuntu. I care about the latest upstream version, I don't spend time supporting previous upstream versions. In Debian, it's different - if the same package has a problem in stable which I've fixed in unstable, then I will see about a backport because I'm a Debian Developer, I'm the maintainer and I know how to do that properly (and it has nothing whatsoever to do with upstream). I have no idea or desire to know how to do that for any other distro - I know I couldn't do it properly. > >Unreported bugs cannot be fixed. Bugs which are meant to affect the > >versions of packages in a Debian stable release have to be demonstrated > >in Debian before the package can be fixed in Debian. > > There are lot of bugs in the BTS already - just take a look at this: I know there are some bugs in the BTS but none are of release-critical severity, as determined by the maintainers. Most packages in Debian have some bugs, many have quite a lot of bugs but only a portion of those are considered with regard to changing the version of packages in the release. > Half of them are about crashes (even on very start) despite of being put > into Important or Normal category. That would make me think that the bugs only affect a limited number of users or that the number of people who actually care about LXDE is in decline. > big code revision made between releases. It's why upstream developers > just cannot accept bugreports for those versions anymore. I'm sorry. That doesn't matter either. It is up to bug submitters and the maintainers to handle bugs which are closed by new upstream releases being introduced into Debian. The new upstream release could go into experimental but it's up to the maintainers to put it into unstable once the Wheezy release is complete. From there, it can migrate into the next version of testing (Jessie) and from there it could also go into backports, if there is a request. If the Debian maintainers want to talk to upstream about some bugs, it is up to the Debian maintainers to make their questions relevant to upstream - that doesn't affect the way that existing bugs are handled. > version 1.0. I'm sorry but if we cannot find a solution for this problem > then all the current bugs in Debian BTS will be there for very long time. Possibly, possibly not. When the next release turns up in Debian, the maintainers may choose to ping the submitters of the existing bug reports to see if their problems are now fixed. Debian does not assume that Debian bugs are fixed by the next upstream release unless the bug has already been explicitly forwarded upstream and can be tracked to an upstream bug report. Even then, the bug has to be shown to be closed in Debian, irrespective of whether upstream think it's fixed. > You may hate me saying this but that's sad fact. If you think it's normal > then I'll shut up and let users ask you why their bugreports are never > fixed. And upstream will tell them how to run 'make install'. :) That's a complete misunderstanding of the role of upstream. Bugs in Debian are fixed via unstable, not stable. Important fixes can be backported after the release, if there is a request to do so but as the existing user base have not reported any release critical issues in these packages, there is no reason to change the release status of the packages. Existing bugs will be handled in the normal way - once the release process is complete. Bug reports in Debian are fixed within Debian - in association with upstream where the issues are relevant to both parties. Most bug fixing in Debian has very little to do with upstream bug tracking - usually because the problem is not the same bug in both cases. Also, 'make install' might not work on systems running newer versions anyway because upstreams tend to rely on latest versions of other dependencies, some of which are probably in exactly the same situation where version 0.2.3 is in testing and will be released but 0.3.0 is in some random VCS / as a tarball on a random download site. Therefore, nothing is likely to happen until all of the relevant dependencies are updated in unstable *after* the Wheezy release. BTW it's nothing to do with me, I have used LXDE before (gradually moving to XFCE instead), I'm not a maintainer of LXDE and don't really care about either package specifically. I'm just looking to get Wheezy released without people expecting new upstream releases to be included at this late stage. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpekS3vkeJ4T.pgp
Description: PGP signature
