needs-packaging Example

[Emmet Hikory]

Wolfger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:16 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>
>> Please note that needs-packaging bugs should never be set to 'incomplete'
>> to prevent bug expiry. There is really no point in expiring
>> needs-packaging bugs, at some point someone will or will not package
>> it.
>
> I agreed with this when I first read it, but (of course) when I
> decided to look at some needs-packaging bugs today, I found one which
> I felt really did deserve it. Or perhaps it shouldn't have been a
> "needs-packaging" bug in the first place? ;-)
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/devil/+bug/130239

    No, that bug would be better served by the "upgrade" tag.  The
"needs-packaging" tag should be reserved for cases where the nature of
the bug is that some piece of software is not available in Ubuntu at
all, and may be interpreted as a request for someone to package the
software in the repositories.  The "upgrade" tag is an indicator that
the software is outdated, and may be interpreted as a request that
someone update the software to a newer upstream version.

    In the case of the "needs-packaging" bugs, I still believe that
"incomplete" isn't a useful status: it ought remain untriaged until
someone puts up the useful information (homepage, license, brief
description, software name, etc.), after which it's completely
triaged: it's generally not worth training submitters about this class
of bugs as there are few repeat submitters who are not also packagers.

    In the case of the "upgrade" bugs, "incomplete" is a very useful
status, as the reporter may not have provided enough information about
that is happening, or why the upgrade should be done (although in many
cases simple verification that the current development repository is
less than that requested or upstream is sufficient).  In the specific
case of bug #130239, the core-bug appears to be related to the texture
rendering in some way, and needs more information to determine how to
fix it (this may involve moving to 1.6.8rc2, but I'm suspicious about
that solution as there appears to have been no final 1.6.8 release,
and upstream appears inactive the past two years).

    I've removed the "needs-packaging" tag from this bug, and not
added the "upgrade" tag, as I am not sure if an upgrade would fix the
reported problem.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY