On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 17:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 10:11 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 12:17 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> RC> In addition to all this, another issue has popped up, which IMO > >>>> RC> renders shipping static libs as part of Fedora very questionable > >>>> RC> (to say the least) > >>>> RC> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209316 > >>>> > >>>> Surely this is a bug in RPM, > >>> RH's rpm maintainers don't seem to agree, they closed it "WONTFIX" :( > >> It was jbj that closed it it WONTFIX, not the RH rpm maintainer. > > > > <*grin*/> I am aware about this, nevertheless I regard anybody who > > closes bugs on an FC package (Note: this PR was against rpm*fc5.*.rpm) > > to be a RH maintainer. > > Anybody in the fedorabugs group has the ability to close bugs in all of > Fedora. It doesnt have to be a RH maintainer Then it might be time to reconsider this practice. The way some sort of PRs are being handled *at* RH slowly p***es ME off. > and moreover the bug was not closed. This half of your sentence is true, I stand corrected, in this case, unlike many other before, it had not been closed. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
