Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2010-02-10 x86_64

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 04:42:53 UTC 2010


On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 02:50:35AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:04:33 -0600, Matt wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 02:06:06PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 07:28:34PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:50:29 -0600, Matt wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > sylpheed-3.0.0-3.0.beta7.fc13 (missing_DSO_to_linker__http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking) itamarjp,cwickert,mschwendt
> > > > 
> > > > How is package ownership determined? I have nothing to do anymore with
> > > > Sylpheed for F-13 or F-12.
> > > >
> > > Just a guess -- it's taking people in all of the non-EOL branches.  Which
> > > means that F-11 is why you're on this list.
> > 
> > This is what I use:
> > 
> > function get_owners()
> > {
> >     URL='https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugzilla?tg_format=plain'
> >     OUTPUT=~/owners.list
> > 
> >     curl -u ${FASUSER}:${FASPASS} -F user_name=${FASUSER} \
> >     -F password=${FASPASS} -F login=Login "$URL" | \
> >      grep "^Fedora|" > ${OUTPUT}
> > }
> > 
> > It's not restricted by branch.  Should it be, and if so, what syntax?
> 
> That URL is the same I user for the broken deps reports, of course.
> Haven't thought about that.
> 
> Hmm, bugzilla doesn't handle a different owner per "Product Version"
> either, does it?
> 
> So, the fine-grained options in pkgdb don't map into bugzilla, ... and
> not into the foo-owner email aliases either. That implies that package
> co-maintainers for old branches receive all bugzilla mail plus additional
> reports even if it's not about their branch. 
>
Yep, this is correct :-(  When I wrote the packagedb many years ago now,
I was told that split products might happen when Bugzilla moved to a new
major version.  That's happened but it seems that splitting the various
Fedora Releases into separate products was decided against.

Not sure if/how we would want to redesign the interface to account for that
(it gets a little funky as we do have things that are decided per package in
Fedora Release (VCS acls), per Bugzilla Product (Fedora, Fedora EPEL, and
Fedora OLPC), and per package (description, summary, name)

BTW, for both of you, please either switch to the /pkgdb/lists/bugzilla url
or to using the python API in python-fedora.  The next version of the pkgdb
will be getting rid of the acls/bugzilla URL.  (There's unfortunately not
a good way to show that a URL is deprecated from the server ATM).

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100213/dac59c52/attachment.bin 


More information about the devel mailing list