Re: We need a new subject- bug fixes

Aaron Konstam wrote:

This is partially my fault. What I am reporting is not an upstream
problem. Mozilla is perfectly capable of doing what I want it to do if I
change the config option indicated. It is a problem with how firefox is
distributed by the rpm created I assume by fedora. I am asking that
fedora repackage a existing rpm. I am completely updated. A new firefox
came last week (1.5.0.10) but I can't tell if this correction was made.

Fedora generally doesnt deviate from upstream defaults. So what configuration upstream ships with indeed does matter here.

It is not an upstream problem also since firefox2 as far as I can tell
does not have this problem.

Sure but they still support Firefox 1.5 so it remains something upstream can deal with.

But the responder to the bugzilla did not
say they would deal with the problem in FC6. So in effect they as I said
sent the complaint somewhere else (what you are calling upstream)

The responder cannot determine that without upstream being involved. If you concerns, you should at the minimum continue the discussion in the bug report. Otherwise we would need to the patch packages. Patching tends to cut down agility since for every update the patch needs additional maintenance and the fix becomes distribution specific instead of being shared work common to everyone.

Asking you to update, provide a upstream upstream and report back to the distribution is not equivalent to telling you the complaint elsewhere (though I can see the comparison). It will still be tracked by Fedora. Only that Fedora wont be the only place where it is tracked. By the way this is pretty much common practice in all distributions. I will also probably write down the benefits of reporting bugs upstream somewhere prominent in the wiki to help understand what I described here.

Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Call for vote: Nautilus use Browser view for fedora 11
    ... then enough in other packages to save your own asses and you tell us ... If a software is not included at all in Fedora, ... modification and upstream is preserved as it is. ... firefox because i know a setting got in there a while ago to "fix" ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: We need a new subject- bug fixes
    ... I'm not talking about additional packages - this is in reference to your comment about not deviating from upstream. ... Well defined package licensing guidelines for Fedora. ... That the distribution sendmail configuration is handled entirely differently than all the other services that have distribution-specific and fairly systematic ways to activate them. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Oops report for the week preceding June 16th, 2008
    ... of internal API changes that affect all drivers. ... to _not_ merge the new wireless bits upstream. ... a shift in attitude about what is mergeable upstream. ... The practice of pushing cutting-edge wireless stuff into Fedora ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [git pull] drm
    ... I'm not complaining about Nouveau people. ... But not only is Fedora not following the rules, ... need to make "merge upstream" be a priority for them. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: fedora package v upstream source
    ... If upstream have parts of their code that have incompatible licensing, then the fedora package might exclude that part. ... A fifth difference is our policy to exclude statically linked libraries from Fedora builds. ...
    (Fedora)