[ http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html ] On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:11 +0100, Milos wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote: > > > >> * Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 > >> I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored. > > > > Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close > > something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face. > > > > "They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek > > added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines. > > Indeed, surprising:) > > I've reopened again, let's see what explanation we will get (if any). > > Milos Does anyone else like to add something? I've slept about this, and I'm starting to feel bad. If the autoqa guys had blogged about such a test for static lib packaging, I'm sure there would be a lobby who praises them. This check of whether static libs are packaged correctly is automated, including the tracking and closing of bugzilla tickets. In my opinion the guidelines are clear [1], I've been responsive to answer early questions. But apparently it's too easy to slam a door and hide somewhere. "binutils" is not the only troublemaker. "e2fsprogs" has been reported two months ago without a response. -- [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556038#c2 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
