Re: Are packages in Fedora Extras not being QA?

[Matthias Saou <thias spam spam spam spam spam spam spam egg and spam freshrpms net>]

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
*wink*

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 ;-)

Matthias

-- 
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