Bug#499833: chccwdev cannot set device offline in Lenny
On 2010-01-25 at 05:58:04 +0100, Franz Pop wrote: If there still is an issue affecting current kernels, you will probably get much more response reporting it to the upstream kernel developers than with a Debian bug report. I'm just trying to follow the rules. From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting Don't file bugs upstream If you file a bug in Debian, don't send a copy to the upstream software maintainers yourself, as it is possible that the bug exists only in Debian. If necessary, the maintainer of the package will forward the bug upstream. Given that, what are the guidelines for when to file the initial bug report directly with upstream vs. when to file a bug report with Debian? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#566649: s390-tools: New upstream version 1.8.3 available
On 24.01.2010 21:53, Frans Pop wrote: I've chosen to leave the following components disabled for now as I'm unsure how relevant they are for Debian: - osasnmpd (was already disabled) - cpuplugd (daemon, so would require some work) - ipl_tools ipl_tools are basic tools used to specify which actions to perform after a shutdown/reboot command, such as specifying from which disk to boot. These tools can be very useful for system administrators (especially on LPAR) and even for install tools (when a reboot is necessary, the installer can specify to boot the installed medium instead of ending up in the installer again). My recommendation would be to provide them per default for anyone who installs the s390-tools package. - ziomon Regards, Peter Oberparleiter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#499833: chccwdev cannot set device offline in Lenny
Given that, what are the guidelines for when to file the initial bug report directly with upstream vs. when to file a bug report with Debian? It's mostly a question of what's most effective. The kernel team is already drowned in bug reports and has very little manpower to deal with relatively minor or very specific issue, especially not for the less popular arches. There are very few Debian-specific patches in the kernel, especially not for s390. So any s390 kernel issue is almost certain to be an upstream issue. Besides that I'm *not* saying your original report was wrong. But based on the information in it (and its lack of progress) I'm now suggesting that contacting upstream directly is probably most efficient. In this case my (not so) humble opinion as a Debian Developer is that there is zero benefit from having a DD acting as a middleman for this issue. I've done quite a lot of work with kernel upstream myself, so I think I'm a fair judge of that. So the general rule is to report bugs in Debian, but there is no rule that says a Debian Developer cannot refer you to upstream developers. Also: rules are nice, but one should always use ones own judgement. The rule is there to avoid having upstreams swamped with distro-specific issues. As we've determined that's unlikely, there's no reason not to contact them directly. The same is true if a user is himself certain an issue is upstream, especially if there's no progress on a Debian BR. The main thing is to get things done. Whatever works without annoying people (volunteers) is good in free software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
