Description of problem: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-January/msg00429.html Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): All, up to cobbler-0.3.8-1.fc7 Additional info: You have been ignoring this bug since it has been reported to the f-e-l on Jan 18.
I have not been "ignoring this "bug". You neglected to email the owner (me) or the package mailing list "et-mgmt-tools" directly. That's all. The first does not affect the build system, so I do not understand why this is a problem. The latter may, though a link to the packaging guidelines that explains this would better illustrate your argument than declaring it a "NO NO", which is not helpful.
(In reply to comment #1) > I have not been "ignoring this "bug". You neglected to email the owner (me) or > the package mailing list "et-mgmt-tools" directly. Whatever this list is, it is irrelevant for Fedora. > That's all. This package is part of FE ... YOU as FE maintainer, are supposed to be subscribed to f-e-l. > The first does not affect the build system, > so I do not understand why this is a > problem. The latter may, though a link to the packaging guidelines that > explains this would better illustrate your argument than declaring it a > "NO NO", which is not helpful. 1. Your overly long description breaks rpm viewers. The Guidelines are very clear on this, rpmlint even warns about it. 2. The buildroot check is non-functional. 3. There are rule of the game, you as an FE maintainer are supposed to obey.
Comments noted. Tone not appreciated. I am subscribed to Fedora-Extras. I, like many folks, occasionally mis messages on high traffic lists. Directing emails to the owner as well as f-e-l is a good idea as it ensures the things that should be brought to my attention. Actually, submitting the bugzilla first instead of posting about it would have been useful as well, as bugzillas go to the owner directly. I can't be ignoring a bug that hasn't been filed yet :) 1. Thanks for your explanation in #1. Yes, rpmlint does warn about it, where it did not do so before. This can be shortened. 3. This isn't a game :). This is why when sending bug reports it is important to remain professional and provide as much information as possible. I have asked for official documentation on why this is invalid (such as link to documentation on fedoraproject in the packaging guidelines), do you have any pointers to such information?
(In reply to comment #3) > Comments noted. Tone not appreciated. > > I am subscribed to Fedora-Extras. I, like many folks, occasionally mis messages > on high traffic lists. Well, ... extras is not really a high traffic list - It's hardly measurable in the amount of list traffic I receive from mailing list (> 1000mails/day). Sorting mails into folders and selectively reading helps to get this amount managable. > Directing emails to the owner as well as f-e-l is a good > idea as it ensures the things that should be brought to my attention. Ask Togami, ask THL, ask Keating and FESCO why they set reply-to to fedora-commits-lists they way they do. I repeatedly asked then, then tried to nagged them and finally could not avoid to rant at them to improve this situation - Nothing has changed, so you are a victim of their preference - Replies to commits go to f-e-l only. They want it this way - So be it. > submitting the bugzilla first instead of posting about it would have been useful > as well, It's waaaaaaaay more effort to bugzilla something than to send a note to a list rsp. to reply to a mail you are supposed to read, esp. when it comes to minor and obvious issues like this. - It would have even been less effort to directly fix this in cvs than wasting time on bugzilla. "One package - one owner" .. you are facing the consequences of RH's understanding of collaboration :( Also - I regret having to state this, and am well aware you will not like it - experience tells many folks with an @redhat.com address to be very ignorant about packaging bugs and to be very ignorant about bugzilla and Fedora in general. You not responding to my f-e-l made appear you to appear in this class of people. I would be glad to see me corrected in your particular case - It would qualify you as a pleasant exception from the general impression @redhat.com's tend to communicate. > 1. Thanks for your explanation in #1. Yes, rpmlint does warn about it, where > it did not do so before. This can be shortened. It does so for ages - IIRC, it even did so during the fedora.us days. > 3. This isn't a game :). It is :-) It's the big, "a company trying to outsouce and buy-in the public" experiment ;)
Ignoring the OT discourse, the description length issue is resolved.