Are packages in Fedora Extras not being QA?

[Brian Pepple]

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.

/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bdpepple at ameritech.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050202/48828967/attachment.sig>