Frank Murphy wrote:
> Therefor whover reported it will know.
It may not even be a Fedora user. That doesn't mean the bug doesn't affect
Fedora users.
> If's it's an upstram bug, that affects more Fedora users
> than the packager then yes refrence it,
>
> Because most Fedora users will go redhat.bugzilla first to check for
> existing.
If it's already fixed, we just need to push the fix, we don't need a bug
report at all.
And users are supposed to update to the current updates before filing bugs.
But if they don't (which is bad!), it's easy to close the bug as ERRATA when
they file it.
As for telling the user what bugs are fixed by the update, that's what the
update notes are for, the update submitter is supposed to paste in, link to
or write up a user-readable list of changes. (The upstream project is
supposed to provide such a list, most do.) This doesn't need to be in the
form of a list of Bugzilla references.
> It does if it fixes problems in Fedora,
> if it doesn't is it needed?
Problems may be in Fedora even if they aren't in our Bugzilla. (In fact,
most upstream bugs also affect Fedora.)
> With the exception,
> that if the update fixes a problem he doesn't have,
> why should it be pushed on him.
Because other Fedora users have the problem and we can't push customized
updates to every user for exactly the problems he's having?
> And package logs to the system user, well.
> Thats' where the description would come in handy.
> Links to bz are fine, but some updates at first glance,
> have no need to be pushed. No bz, nothing only it's got a new icon (etc.).
I agree that some updates make no sense to be pushed, and that empty update
notes suck!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
