[
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.
--
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556038#c2