Did some bugzilla cleanups
fedora at leemhuis.info
Wed Oct 8 10:26:03 CEST 2008
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
> package name.
Agreed. So splitting in free and nonfree likely doesn't make much sense.
> Other issues:
> * 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 "nonfree".
> EPEL: libmad
libmad was two times in owners.epel.list for free; fixed
> * There is an entry with an "initialqacontact" which is a field
> disabled in this bz. Use "initialcc" instead.
> EPEL: libmpeg2
You mean this?
free/owners/owners.list:Fedora|libmpeg2|MPEG-2 decoder libraries \
|kwizart at gmail.com|david at juran.se|
> * Avoid the '&' character in package summaries in owners.list because
> bz doesn't replace it with a html entity. This breaks parsing of bz
More information about the rpmfusion-developers