On 15/05/06, Michael A. Peters <mpeters@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 22:34 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > This also raises the meta question - is it ok for subpackages to have > their own bugzilla entry? I think the answer has to be yes.
[snip]
While that is a problem - the proper bugzilla entry can be found by looking at the rpm info (which shows the src.rpm that spawned it).
Fair point.
There are a boatload of packages with sub packages, and when I asked about this before (components for sub packages) I was very bluntly told "not gonna happen".
Yes, now you mention it, I can see that it would lead to an unmanagable inflation of bugzilla., forget I mentioned it. [I wonder how many users submitting bugs to bugzilla realize they need to find the module name from the rpm database in this way. I also wonder how many people are discouraged from submitting bugzillas because they can't find the relevant module. I then wonder if bugzillas from those people would be useful anyway. I should probably stop wondering.] Anyway to stay on topic - the emacs-foo proposal isn't reliant on a separate bugzilla entry for the xemacs-foo subpackage - it just would've been nice. But the disadvantages of having subpackage entries in bugzilla outweight the advantages, it seems to me. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
