[
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html ]
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:11 +0100, Milos wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
> >
> >> * Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX:
> >>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040
> >> I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
> >
> > Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close
> > something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
> >
> > "They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub
Jelinek
> > added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
>
> Indeed, surprising:)
>
> I've reopened again, let's see what explanation we will get (if any).
>
> Milos
Does anyone else like to add something?
I've slept about this, and I'm starting to feel bad. If the autoqa guys
had blogged about such a test for static lib packaging, I'm sure there
would be a lobby who praises them.
This check of whether static libs are packaged correctly is automated,
including the tracking and closing of bugzilla tickets. In my opinion the
guidelines are clear [1], I've been responsive to answer early questions.
But apparently it's too easy to slam a door and hide somewhere. "binutils"
is not the only troublemaker. "e2fsprogs" has been reported two months ago
without a response.
I appreciate the work you're doing here, and I think if you're not
getting traction you should bring it to FESCos attention.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: