On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:52:25 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > buildsys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > perl-String-CRC32: paul AT city-fan.org > > 4: 0:1.4-1.fc4 (FE4) > > 5: 0:1.4-1.FC5 (FC5-updates) > > 6: 0:1.4-1.FC6.1 (FC6) > > Shouldn't the email address attached to the report be the one for the > person that needs to do something to fix this (in this case, the > maintainer of the package for FC5-updates and FC6) rather than the > person that caused the breakage (i.e. me, maintainer for FE4 :-( )? Even with a complete package database (which we could query on "package owner(s) per package _per dist_", it would not be bullet-proof either and would require additional logic in its implementation. In above case: 1.4-1.FC5 is lower than 1.4-1.fc4 Maybe the package was moved from Extras into Core, and the Core packager chose an incompatible dist tag. The script cannot know that. Compare with the following scenario: 4: 0:1.4-2.fc4 (FE4) 5: 0:1.4-1.fc5 (FC5-updates) 6: 0:1.4-1.fc6 (FC6) Who is to blame now? The FE4 package owner for releasing something that's higher than FC5/FC6? Or the FC5/FC6 package owner for a missing update? The script could only guess. The script could report to all package owners involved. Anyway, we cannot do much about it without a complete package database. Extracting package owners from Core bugzilla (Components list) returns also some mailing-lists. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
