Fedora Extras vs. CLOSED RAWHIDE

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:12:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Some examples:
> 
> * In some cases such "known bugs" prevent Fedora Extras to supply
> packages for downstream releases, because the officially released
> packages the Fedora Extras packages are based on are broken.
> 
> E.g. "missing shared libs in ghostview"
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
> break gsview for FC1
> https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1940

Though, in this case the extra package should not have been released for
FC1. The explicit dependency on a shared library soname should not have
passed QA for FC1.

> IMO, it would be best if RH/FC would prefer not to close bugs as "CLOSED
> RAWHIDE" when ever reasonable/applicable and to officially upgrade the
> package instead. 
> Alternatively, it could also be worth to consider handing over such a
> package to "Fedora Extra" for "interim band-aid packages".

No. That would make it a Fedora Core bug-fix update and would not be an
extra package. Updates to Fedora Core must not be released in Fedora
Extras.