On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:52:25 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> [email protected] 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
fedora-extras-list mailing list