Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Stephen Warren wrote: >> On Fri, February 13, 2009 11:38 am, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >>> Next step is to get it out of bugzilla. This requires: >>> 1) Moving any open or closed bugs against 'b' to a different package. >>> 2) Opening a bug in bugzilla.redhat.com against bugzilla to have an >>> admin remove the package. >> FYI, when unison was split to unison213 and unison227, I followed step (2) >> to get rid of the old unison. The bug sat untouched for ages, the was >> closed "will not fix" because the bugzilla admins claimed Fedora people >> needed to do it, not them. >> > And they were right. These are two different usages. > > For the "b" package -- it's not a real package. There's no cvs > directory for it. There's no package in the wild for it. Therefore it > can be removed from the package database. Then it can be removed from > bugilla. > > For the unison* packages, packages with all three names have been built. > There's rpms in the archives repos. There's cvs modules for all of > them (even if one is marked as a dead package). So they cannot be > removed from the packagedb. If they are not removed from the packagedb, > then the packagedb will create them in bugzilla if they do not exist. > So unison cannot be removed from bugzilla. Well, I *thought* I was following instructions somewhere on the Fedora wiki re: the process to follow for package renames. It was a long time ago, so I may be misremembering. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
