Best practice for reporting bugs

[Scott Kitterman]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:40:56 +0100 Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> 
wrote:
>Reinhard Tartler [2009-03-26 11:11 +0100]:
>> Is it feasible to backport apport to hardy and intrepid?
>
>Most of apport backports well, the code doesn't do anything Python
>2.6-only. 
>
>However, the bit people are probably most interested in is
>apport-collect, and that's where the trouble starts. Hardy doesn't
>ship launchpadlib yet, and intrepid's has an older version with some
>incompatibilities. Intrepid's version is just compatible
>enough for apport-collect, though, which is why I put apport-collect
>at [2], so that bug triagers can refer bug reporters to it on intrepid.
>
>My ppa [1] has hardy and intrepid backports of the required
>launchpadlib bits.
>
>The current jaunty apport itself is not really suitable for an SRU by
>the standard policy; it has many new features, changed strings, etc.
>We could provide it in *-backports, but few people use that.

Speaking as an ubuntu-backporter, I think these would be good backports.  I 
think it would be easier for people to securely get packages via backports 
than a ppa when triagers might ask them to update.

Scott K