Per Bjornsson wrote:
Also I've already fil this kind of bugs, and had quite different replays.
At one side very good, but at other eg. #131846 it wasn't so kind :/
Beside still in development tree xerces-j is in old version and probably
was in FC2.
So part of the issue here seems to be that the bug report (should really
be an RFE) is mostly about updating to a newer package version; the
packager asked that you at least give a reason for why it is urgent to
get that package updated and essentially said that an update is planned
for FC3. He probably didn't consider it a critical enough update to push
it through ahead of other work; likely it will show up sometime soon.
The second issue, the missing URL in the spec file, is something you're
kind of just mentioning in passing. If you files a separate bug only
about that issue I'm sure you'd get a different response.
Having many bug reports isn't really a problem as long as they are
clear. A concise report that asks that the full URL be added to the spec
file is easy to deal with and can be fixed and closed. If you start
mixing that up with other issues (be it actual issues with a package or
some type of enhancement request) it's much less clear when the bug
should be closed; there's a good chance that the developer will close
the bug report after the apparent main issues are dealt with, and their
idea of "main issues" might not turn out to be the same as yours!
What should I do with bugs like that:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=130310
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=131857
When I only fil bug about bad URL, then when developer close that bug,
he'll made another one, because old version of that package isn't
available on that new website, so I'll have to fil another bug where I
should point that he have to update package to newer version because
current URL and Source are invalid for this version?
--
Best Regards
Marcin Garski
