Package: qa.debian.org Followup-For: Bug #1039563 X-Debbugs-Cc: debbug.1039...@sideload.33mail.com
* Bart Martens 'ba...@debian.org' via 33Mail <sen...@mailer1.33mail.com> [2023-06-29 07:39]: > > This is an example of different opinions about bug >< feature. Do you really believe it’s an /opinion/ to say a SOCKS proxy is an HTTP proxy? It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a factual matter. When someone botches the facts, we don’t call it an opinion. It’s a falsehood. An HTTP proxy is not a SOCKS proxy, and a SOCKS proxy is not an HTTP proxy. Trying to pick apart the example is an unhelpful distraction to the discussion of whether the Debian project should have a procedure for tracking mishandled bugs. > Quoting from 1026922: > > Directing users to report bugs upstream goes against Debian > > conventions. It’s the duty of the maintainer to mirror bugs upstream: > > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting > > This text is about preventing duplicate effort. No it’s not. It’s about following Debian guidelines. Whether those guidelines call for “duplicate effort” is irrelevant here. If someone doesn’t like the documented Debian procedure of reporting bugs to the Debian BTS first and then escalating upstream from there, bug 1039563 is not the place for that discussion. > I understand your frustration. I doubt however that wrapping 1026922 > in a request for addressing mishandled bugs would be helpful. Bug 1026922 is about as perfect of an example as you’re going to get because unlike most bug reports there is little room for subjectivity. Proper handling of the bug was to mirror upstream and send “control: forwarded 1026922 http://github.com/…”. That did not happen. There needs to be a mechanism by which these cases can be flagged so the community can assess the quality of a package and so developers can easily find and fix suppressed bugs.
