[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Are packages in Fedora Extras not being QA?

Brian Pepple wrote :

> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 15:58 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Brian Pepple wrote:
> > > Looks like two bugs were filed against it already, but were closed
> > > without any apparent action.
> > > 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143285
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=143284
> > 
> > What do you mean without action?  One was closed WONTFIX, the other 
> > closed RAWHIDE (ie, fixed in cvs).
> Meaning the a fix actually has been published in Extras.
> The bug regarding the malformed .desktop file was reported about 6 weeks
> ago, but no fix was ever pushed to Extra (or Pre-Extras).  Seems like
> that should be something real easy to publish, since only the %
> {desktop_vendor} macro needs to be fixed in the spec file.

Then it's just that the rebuild was missed... I'll ask Seth to rebuild now

The "no action taken" regarding the binary not being in $PATH (the other
bug) is true, though, because I don't see any reason to take any, as
explained in the bug. Feel free to express a contradictory opinion, as if
there are reasons I simply can't ignore, I'll abide ;-)


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.10-1.753_FC3
Load : 0.19 0.45 0.43

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]