Description of problem:
Using the save-to-bugzilla feature of anaconda for recording tracebacks when testing Fedora 13 images is filing bugs with version=rawhide. Apologies, I'm not clear whether this should be filed against anaconda or python-meh.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
* anaconda 13.35
Steps to Reproduce:
See bug#574743, it was filed against rawhide
Perhaps this should be filed against Fedora 13?
* I'm adding this to F13Beta for discussion whether this bug affects the Alpha criteria "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included "
Moved to F13Target after discussion in the F13 Beta blocker review meeting. This would be nice to have for Beta, but we would not hold beta for this bug.
Can you point me to a tree that was exhibiting this behavior?
(In reply to comment #2)
> Can you point me to a tree that was exhibiting this behavior?
Okay here's what I think is going on. In that tree's .buildstamp, we have:
That means product.productVersion is "13-Beta". Later, we go grab a list of all the valid product versions for Fedora according to bugzilla, 13-Beta is nowhere to be found. So we fall back to the default of rawhide.
In other words, this should not affect the final release of F13. If we care enough for the test releases, I can make meh smart enough to recognize this condition and try trimming off the "-whatever" from version numbers. Do we care enough?
For the future, I do not know how report plans on getting the version number but it may be worth bringing this issue up with them too. Otherwise we may just see it again on F14.
Doesn't seem like a huge problem to release with, but I don't think just filing bugs against rawhide is the right answer either. Adding jkeating to the list, but I'd propose that .buildstamp:
The datestamp and contents of .treeinfo sha256sum's can be used to determine what particular build this represents. Jesse, any objections or concerns?
To accomplish that, we'd have to start calling the version "13" and not "13-Beta" which would screw up path names and iso names. So we either have to "hack" it in pungi or hack it in python-meh.
I would much rather work around this in meh than do anything crazy in pungi or .buildstamp, as those are going to affect a whole lot more components.
Does updates=http://clumens.fedorapeople.org/574748.img fix this issue?
(In reply to comment #7)
> Does updates=http://clumens.fedorapeople.org/574748.img fix this issue?
Seems to do the trick (see bug#576264 for example).
python-meh-0.7.1-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
python-meh-0.7.1-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-meh'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-meh-0.7.1-1.fc13
python-meh-0.7.1-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.