FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-29-2010, 09:43 PM
JohnS
 
Default WAS//handling ABRT//NOW Reality

On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 22:29 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote:

> That is what I am not sure about and especially where my hesitations
> come from (seeing how many people help tracking bugs on bugs.centos.org).

Ok this is not about "abrt" but is about bug reports.tracking.etc...
I'm just bringing it up again and it is no way to mean anything to you.
(Ralph)...

I don't think it is really clear enough if people are wanted to submit
patches to the bz for things like [1]. Or for that matter for those of
who can fix things and provide el6 workable sources. IE, the ones of us
that have EL5 hosts that support building for EL6. It seems to me it
was just a errrrr ok if you can but we don't really want that? I think
we all need an enlightenment on this.

I have a Spread Sheet dump of bz.co.c and 90% are Block Status? I also
see [2] which has not changed in 3 days {Sat 27 Nov 2010 05:50:45 PM
EST}. Check the server logs and you will see :-)
{Mon Nov 29 17:42:30 EST 2010}

1. Is it getting blocked from being in the distro?
2. It is clearly patch hell for a beginner.
3. It would be a great patch project.
4. Like a Jigsaw Puzzle non the less it can be patched to workability.
5. Clearly it has more ".com" references than the law allows.
6. Maybe this should go in the reality thread?
7. Define the patchable ones and maybe we can split them up between the
ones that do know how to do so.

John

[1] http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4648
[2] http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/6/AuditStatus


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 11:58 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default WAS//handling ABRT//NOW Reality

Am 29.11.10 23:43, schrieb JohnS:
> Ok this is not about "abrt" but is about bug reports.tracking.etc...
> I'm just bringing it up again and it is no way to mean anything to you.
> (Ralph)...

Good, because I really have no idea what you were trying to say in your
mail.

Ralph

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-30-2010, 03:44 AM
JohnS
 
Default WAS//handling ABRT//NOW Reality

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 01:58 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Am 29.11.10 23:43, schrieb JohnS:
> > Ok this is not about "abrt" but is about bug reports.tracking.etc...
> > I'm just bringing it up again and it is no way to mean anything to you.
> > (Ralph)...
>
> Good, because I really have no idea what you were trying to say in your
> mail.

You should read it again..

John

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-02-2010, 12:46 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default WAS//handling ABRT//NOW Reality

On 11/29/2010 10:43 PM, JohnS wrote:
> I don't think it is really clear enough if people are wanted to submit
> patches to the bz for things like [1].

absolutely do so. If there is anything in the distro that hits
properties outside .centos.org - then you should at-least file it in,
patch would be great as well; but do not hold the report back if you
don't have a patch.

> Or for that matter for those of
> who can fix things and provide el6 workable sources. IE, the ones of us
> that have EL5 hosts that support building for EL6. It seems to me it
> was just a errrrr ok if you can but we don't really want that? I think
> we all need an enlightenment on this.

Not sure what you mean by that, did you find sources that did'nt work in
EL6 ? That is the sort of thing which would need to ideally make its way
into bugzilla.r.c

> I have a Spread Sheet dump of bz.co.c and 90% are Block Status? I also
> see [2] which has not changed in 3 days {Sat 27 Nov 2010 05:50:45 PM
> EST}. Check the server logs and you will see :-)
> {Mon Nov 29 17:42:30 EST 2010}

That timestamp is never going to change, its coming from moin's internal
version check; whereas the page changes content. I'll plumb in a
'generated at: ' timestamp as well. I'll also add in a list of pkgs not
considered as yet, and the whitelists already in place.

The actual report status should be clear enough as to what the status of
the corresponding package is.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:27 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org