You are not logged in.
Should I file a bug report on a package from the community repository in case the bug is resolved upstream and the package is flagged out-of-date?
A reason against doing so might be that the maintainer already knows about the wish for an upgraded package.
Offline
Is it the type of bug where now that an upstream fix exists, you believe it is worth the maintainer backporting the fix into the stable package?
Because you may not submit a bug report just to say "yo, this package is outdated", but it's permitted to submit a bug report for "the package is currently broken because XYZ, there is a fix available upstream". If it's an annoying enough bug, we'll often backport the fix even without an upstream release.
I'd say we should not punish people by telling them they are no longer allowed to submit such a bug report once an upstream release is available. Rather, the recommended resolution for the bug would be "upgrade to the latest version" instead of "add this patch".
(I would also say that for a package that doesn't have an upstream release, I'd be more prone to suggesting a backport because even small issues are annoying if you expect to have to live with it for 8 months until a new release. But that's really a personal take on the matter, not a rule of the bugtracker.)
Nevertheless, it's a judgment call whether or not a specific upstream bug is worth submitting a downstream bug report to get it repackaged. Taken to its illogical extreme, we'd have millions of bugs and spend all day backporting hundreds of patches per package. OTOH, we do want to fix functionality that makes a package useless, or regressions in something that used to work, etc. etc.
If you would like to mention the specific package in question, and the bug it fixes, I could offer my opinion on whether it's worth it. Either way, I hope this explanation helps.
Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)
Offline
Thank you for the detailed reply. I should have said "the bug has been fixed by the developer" instead of "the bug has been fixed upstream"
Of course, I can provide a brief description of the bug by which the package is affected:
gscan2pdf 2.6.6-1 will output a slightly inaccurate aspect ratio if the crop tool has been used.
On the project website, https://sourceforge.net/projects/gscan2 … gscan2pdf/
inside the archive gscan2pdf-2.7.0.tar.xz there is a history file which records the bug being resolved.
Offline
I should have said "the bug has been fixed by the developer" instead of "the bug has been fixed upstream"
Not really - those are exactly synonymous.
gscan2pdf 2.6.6-1 will output a slightly inaccurate aspect ratio if the crop tool has been used.
Does this seem like a critical failure in the software, or a security issue to you? If not, just wait for the next version to be released (and/or feel free to rebuild it for your use from the ABS).
Last edited by Trilby (2020-05-22 18:22:00)
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline
It seems like a critical flaw because when a person scans a sheet of paper, he or she would consider the output to be okay only as long as the images aspect ratio matches the aspect ratio of the sheet of paper. On the other hand, the result will be ok if the crop functionality is avoided.
Offline