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

Re: [Fedora-music-list] Re: package naming question: muse -vs - MusE



On 15/05/06, Michael A. Peters <mpeters mac com> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 22:34 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> This also raises the meta question - is it ok for subpackages to have
> their own bugzilla entry? I think the answer has to be yes.
[snip]
While that is a problem - the proper bugzilla entry can be found by
looking at the rpm info (which shows the src.rpm that spawned it).


Fair point.

There are a boatload of packages with sub packages, and when I asked
about this before (components for sub packages) I was very bluntly told
"not gonna happen".

Yes, now you mention it, I can see that it would lead to an
unmanagable inflation of bugzilla., forget I mentioned it.

[I wonder how many users submitting bugs to bugzilla realize they need
to find the module name from the rpm database in this way. I also
wonder how many people are discouraged from submitting bugzillas
because they can't find the relevant module. I then wonder if
bugzillas from those people would be useful anyway. I should probably
stop wondering.]

Anyway to stay on topic - the emacs-foo proposal isn't reliant on a
separate bugzilla entry for the xemacs-foo subpackage - it just
would've been nice. But the disadvantages of having subpackage entries
in bugzilla outweight the advantages, it seems to me.


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