Michael Schwendt wrote:
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.
That's quite close to what actually happened, though in fact the package
was in FC5 before it was in FE4.
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.
I don't think it's a "blame" thing, it's a "who needs to do something to
fix it" thing. So that would be the maintainer for each version for
which there is a version with a higher EVR for an older distro.
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.
Roll on the package database then.
Paul.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
