Hey Christian, this guy is doing you a *favor*, and you are being rude to him.
If the bug is upstream, then it should be easy for you to know if you have corrected it when you packaged the stuff. Then you can close the bug with explanation: corrected in patch xx, which was forwarded upstream 2000-mm-dd. Otherwise it is plausible that the bug exists in Debian package and you have to react to it somehow. What is the alternative? You are encouraging people to give you less info in the hope that then you will read the report. The quality of bug reports is usually low enough so that one has to be grateful when one receives a report that seems to clearly describe how to reproduce it. I don't think your response reasonable, especially since it would have been so easy for you to check for the presence of the bug in Debian. t.aa Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02 Aug 2000 18:56 > > >>>> "CCC" == Christopher C Chimelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > CCC> I'd forward it upstream, personally. In other words, > CCC> file it as a bug > CCC> with the Helix folk and mark it as forwarded in our BTS. > > I just discovered the Helix BTS. > > CCC> I would recommend checking the Debian package for the > CCC> same problem, > CCC> though. Granted, the filer should NOT have filed the > CCC> bug against a Helix > CCC> version of the packages in question, but if the problem > CCC> is in both... > > This problem is only reported for the Helix package. This bug is an > upstream (sawfish) bug. > > I've said that in a reply : > > ******************************************************************* > Sorry, but use *Debian* package not *Helix* package. > > If can't accept bug against a non Debian package. > > Install the Debian package and remake the bug report if this bug is > still here. > ******************************************************************* > > I think is a reasonable answer ?
