> I don't have any hard statistics, but here are some random examples of
> patches whose development was sponsored by Canonical, were tested and proven
> in Ubuntu, were proactively submitted to Debian by an Ubuntu developer, and
> remain in debbugs months later without comment from the maintainer:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298060
As Petter pointed, that one has received the interest of the
maintainer, namely the shadow maintenance team, through myself.
I made the decision of not fixing this bug in sarge, mostly because
this was IMHO a too risky change so close of the release.
We're now in the process of cleaning out the BTS AND the Debian
specific patches mess for shadow, so this bug will receive attention
when needed. It is indeed marked as "confirmed" which means that we
will apply the suggested change ("confirmed" means for us that we
agree with the bug reporter about the issue).
It is not fixed yet in the versions in sid only because we didn't went
on it. Our priorities are currently the BTS cleaning and resync with
upstream. All Debian specific stuff will come after.
I already discussed about shadow with Colin and I would very pleased
to see someone from Ubuntu joining the team. Unfortunately, as far as
I have seen, the closest developer for this is Colin Watson, who is
already overloaded with tons of things...:-)
However, it is now, I guess, a very well known fact that I have
absolutely no concern at all with Ubuntu and indeed I'm very well
opened to good collaboration, which I know we can make.
So, when possible, don't take shadow (or d-i) as an example of *bad*
collaboration between Ubuntu and Debian. It is not..:-)
(same for APT or dpkg, by the way, obviously)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
