On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Kristian Strickland wrote: > In all fairness to the authors, is it accurate to call a program's > "incorrect" behaviour a bug when the "incorrect" behaviour is caused be the > standards being changed _after_ the software was released?
Actually, your statement is incorrect (IMHO). Software that is, for example developed for another *nix os and is restructured by a debian maintainer to fit our policy, does not have to adhere to our standards at any point in time (before of after the release). Bugs here are meant to imply bugs with the debian system. This statement includes upstream bugs. To the average user, they may not know where the bug came from (i.e. the debian maintainer or upstream). Within debian, it's a bug. If it is an upstream bug, we helpfully pass it on (even perhaps with a patch). If it is just due to our packaging, then we take care of it. Upstream authors realize this (perhaps we should put a loud statement at the top of our bug tracking system to clarify that we could just as easily be responsible for the bug). Anyway, I think it is a whole lot easier letting users file everything as bugs and have us sort out the details. I do agree with you, but there doesn't seem to be a better solution. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Telmer, Kingston, Ontario, Canada <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://terrapin.econ.queensu.ca> -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
