From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 Description of problem: While reading through http://fedora.redhat.com/about/history/, I noticed an error in your description for the Rembrandt release. It says: "RPM re-written in C (I think for this beta)." However, according to the following posts from the redhat-announce-list archives, RPM was completely re-written in C for RPM version 2.0 released on 03/06/1996 in time to be included with the Picasso release on 03/15/1996. http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/81/1996/3/0/260319/ http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/81/1996/3/0/260307/ On a related note, will that page be updated soon to include FC1,FC2t1,FC2t2,FC2t3,FC2 etc? Also, there should be either a product or component for Fedora to assign bug reports to instead of "Red Hat Website - Other". Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.go to http://fedora.redhat.com/about/history/ 2.see error in description of Rembrandt release 3. Actual Results: The completely C re-written RPMis incorrectly attributed to the Rembrandt release description. Expected Results: The completely C re-written RPM should hae been mentioned in the Picasso release description. Additional info:
i have a bugzilla bug in for adding a fedora website section... no one seems to be listening, grr
I assume you mean bug:109938? Yea, +1 from me. Would save the webdev team a lot of time having to re-assign fedora website bugs to Tammy or other.
Thanks for bringing bug #109938 to my attention. I just closed it because the fedora-docs component has since been added. I'll look into this issue and get back to you. I want to verify with someone who was around during the Rembrandt and Picasso releases before I change it just to be safe.
The page this refers to no longer exists. Also, the Fedora Project isn't really trying to keep a comprehensive history of Red Hat Linux. Perhaps this is something that should be maintained in Wikipedia? I'll close this bug as CANTFIX because of the passage of time, change in content, and inability to verify if the mistake still exists anywhere. If there is an effort started to do a comprehensive history, this bug report will likely turn up in research.