On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Petter Reinholdtsen <p...@hungry.com> wrote: > [Scott Howard] >> This bug is better handled upstream than in Debian. > > But that do not seem like a reason to close the bug in Debian, as the > problem still exist in the Debian package. I thought this kind of > situation is what the 'forward' flag in the BTS was for?
How to use the BTS is at the discretion of the maintainer [1]. As bitcoin gets more popular, we should use the Debian BTS for Debian bugs and upstream's issue tracker for upstream bugs. Theoretically all 357 open upstream bugs also apply to Debian's package. Duplicating them just because they exist in both isn't useful to either project. Any patches done to bitcoin must be done very carefully, and the best way is by upstream - so even if we could fix this in Debian, we wouldn't want to until we can cherry pick the exact patch upstream uses. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/HowtoUseBTS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
