On 2 Aug 2000, Christian Marillat wrote: > CCC> I'd forward it upstream, personally. In other words, file it as a bug > CCC> with the Helix folk and mark it as forwarded in our BTS. > > I just discovered the Helix BTS.
Yeah, I had the URL ready in case you didn't have it yet. > This problem is only reported for the Helix package. This bug is an > upstream (sawfish) bug. Hmm...if it's an upstream sawfish bug (and not necessarily related to the Helix package itself), then it needs to be forwarded to the upstream author if you're unable to handle the fixes needed. If it's a Helix-specific problem, and can't be reproduced at all using the debian packages, then it's a Helix problem and the report should be sent to them and marked "forwarded" in the BTS until they can resolve it (IMO). And, if it's a bug that can be reproduced with the Debian packages as well, then it should be forwarded to the upstream author AND remain in the BTS marked "forwarded". >From the looks of it, it seems that this particular bug is more "wishlist" to me, but it may be enough of a problem that it could warrant being a bug. That's just my $0.02. > I think is a reasonable answer ? Yes and no. If it cannot be reproduced at all with the Debian packages, then it's best to redirect the user to the Helix BTS. If it can be, though, it's a sawfish problem that we need to address as well (maybe via the upstream author). Throughout all of the correspondence related to this, I haven't quite found out yet if it's reproducable with the Debian packages. If so, then the user shouldn't be required to refile the bug report since the symptoms are common to both Debian's and Helix's packages. C
