Bug reporting URL field in packages

[Jesse Keating]

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 17:37 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Something like that is quite easily doable by adding a RPMTAG_BUGURL tag 
> extension which grabs its value from macro configuration if set, otherwise 
> use the contents from the package.
> 
> It is out of scope for this discussion though, the question here is about 
> the default value Fedora packages should have. The BUGURL tag contents is 
> just a plain old string which is expanded from %bugurl macro at build time 
> and currently no further processing is done on it. 

I think what we would like to avoid is hardcoding it in the binary rpm.
One of the goals of Fedora is to have our rpms used as is in downstream
respins, where it would be inappropriate for the rpm to define our
bugzilla as the bug filing location.  But if I get what you're saying
right, you could have it hardcoded in the rpm for a case where it isn't
defined (at least in part) in a macro file on the users's system, and
when there is a macro file that defines it on the users's system, use
that definition instead of the one in the rpm itself.  Is that what
you're saying?

We'd also want to avoid a flag day of mass rebuilding any time we want
to change the landing point for people to query/file bugs for a package.

For now, in the rpm itself, I don't think it's unreasonable to use
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/%{name} although I think in the future
we'll want a redesigned landing spot that doesn't confuse users with
unnecessary fedora account system data, conflicting login buttons, etc..

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091006/264cca82/attachment.sig>