On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:16:01 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote: > On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 11:00 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >Axel.Thimm AT ATrpms.net: > > > smart > > > FE4 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc4 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > > FE5 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc5 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > > FE6 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc6 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > > > I wonder if it would be reasonable to suppress rawhide in this report > > until we get closer to test time. Since rawhide occasionally doesn't > > build, and maintainers often concentrate on released versions when > > fixing important bugs or pushing security fixes, the information often > > isn't pertinent. Is it that all this breakage is due to failed rebuild attempts? Or is it that Rawhide and FE Development are just in bad shape because most (or all) package maintainers don't even know that they are supposed to prepare their packages in there, too? (read: no roadmap for Fedora Extras, no guidance by FESCO) In case there are failed rebuild attempts that might benefit from exposure and contributions, why not open a bugzilla ticket and make it block the FE7Target tracker bug? Recently I've mentioned that I've filed a couple of bugs about broken upgrade paths (which affect FC6 or older), and the activity in those tickets is, well, poor. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
