Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> [ 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:
>>>>> 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).
>> 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 , 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.
I second that. This may annoy the crap out of people, but it needs
fixing, and it's FESCo's role to enforce FPC issues. Thank you for
doing the legwork and, sadly, taking the heat.
> packaging mailing list
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
packaging mailing list