On 08.10.2008 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Products are:
>> Fedora (versions: 8, 9, development)
>> Fedora EPEL (versions: 5)
> We really need to discuss quickly if we want to stick to that scheme. E.g.
> 1) do we want to seperate free and nonfree in bugzilla?
Would make it possible to assign different owners. [...]
If there are packages with the same name in both free and nonfree. But
that should never happen, so this isn't a benefit in practice.
> 2) is Fedora EPEL really a good name?
Products in bugzilla can be renamed.
Just wanted to make sure that renaming it later doesn't create to much
trouble for your script.
> My answers:
> 1) unsure; most people likely don't care from which of the repos the
> package comes from; other people OTOH will (and those might even yell at
> us if we don't seperate)
Do they even know?
With too many products in bz to choose from they may
get lost in the lists of "components" and give up trying to find a
Agreed. So splitting in free and nonfree likely doesn't make much sense.
* There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
[long list striped]
Uhhps. Someone should mail the package owners and ask them kindly to
create an account. Any volunteer that want to do this job? Codename is:
"herding the cats!"
* There are entries which differ between "free" and
libmad was two times in owners.epel.list for free; fixed
* There is an entry with an "initialqacontact" which is a
disabled in this bz. Use "initialcc" instead.
You mean this?
free/owners/owners.list:Fedora|libmpeg2|MPEG-2 decoder libraries \
* Avoid the '&' character in package summaries in
bz doesn't replace it with a html entity. This breaks parsing of bz