what's the point of filing bugs against Fedora?

[pgaltieri .]

Even reporting upstream doesn't always help.  The problem I mentioned has
been sitting upstream for 3 weeks with no response.  I had to create a
github account just so I could post asking for an update.  The general
issue is there is an inconsistency with how Fedora bugs are dealt with.
Some bugs are triaged and re-assigned to the appropriate component if
necessary. Some are redirected upstream where they sit for weeks without
being addressed, and others are not addressed at all.

If it's preferred that bugs against products are reported upstream is there
a document that maps Fedora components to upstream sites?

Paolo


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com>wrote:

>
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Tethys <tethys at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> If the bug is a packaging or dependency related bug, then use RHBZ. If
> it's
> >> a feature request, or broken feature that surely would affect every
> distro's
> >> instance of that component, then file it upstream. Often the Fedora
> package
> >> maintainer literally just makes sure the packaging is done correctly for
> >> Fedora.
> >
> > True, but equally the package often comes with a bunch of
> > Fedora-specific modifications.
>
> I don't know how common that is because it's a lot of effort to create
> even slight let alone significant derivatives of upstream work. But if it
> is such a package then you may be better off filing a bug against it in the
> RHBZ.
>
> > The end user has no way of knowing if
> > it's a bug in the base package or in the Fedora supplied patches.
> > Plus, my experience of reporting bugs upstream has invariably been to
> > be told "don't use the Fedora package, try compiling our latest
> > version from source and report back if you still have problems with
> > that". That's a poor experience for most end users.
>
> Make sure the Fedora maintainer is being cc'd on those. Even if upstream
> had a way to see RHBZ bugs, I don't see how your example is avoided. If
> they think they have a fix in a newer base, then that's what you'd have to
> do or suffer with the bug until the next release. Buck passing happens to
> me with some regularity on OS X. The difference is "build new upstream
> version located here and report back" isn't even an option. So sure,
> tedious, do it or don't do it, your choice. But I don't see how this could
> work any differently than it does now, so I don't really understand what
> you're suggesting.
>
>
> Chris Murphy
>
> --
> users mailing list
> users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140114/026aa34d/attachment.html>