1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposal%20for%20bugzilla&In-Reply-To=%3C201012230043.23958.stormi%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="001874.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla</H1>
<B>Samuel Verschelde</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposal%20for%20bugzilla&In-Reply-To=%3C201012230043.23958.stormi%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla">stormi at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Thu Dec 23 00:43:23 CET 2010</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001874.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1865">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1865">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1865">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1865">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 20:34:18, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
><i>
</I>><i> On 22 December 2010 21:25, Frederic Janssens <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">fjanss at gmail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>><i> > On 2010-12-22, Ahmad Samir <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>><i> >> On 22 December 2010 18:37, Frederic Janssens <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">fjanss at gmail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>><i> >>> On 2010-12-22, Ahmad Samir <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>><i> >>>> On 22 December 2010 01:32, Frederic Janssens <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">fjanss at gmail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >>>>> First I think it would be usefull to have a multiline (Large Text Box)
</I>><i> >>>>> 'RPM Packages' field, instead of a single line (Free Text) field as
</I>><i> >>>>> used by mandriva.
</I>><i> >>>>> A single bug can concern more than one rpm. One thing mageia-app-db
</I>><i> >>>>> will do is search all bugs affecting an rpm. For that search to be
</I>><i> >>>>> meaningfull all affected rpms should be mentioned.
</I>><i> >>>>
</I>><i> >>>> 'One bug per report' is what we should do (did); if a bug originates
</I>><i> >>>> from more than one package, a separate report for each of them should
</I>><i> >>>> be opened with the Block/Dependency set correctly.
</I>><i> >>>
</I>><i> >>> Sorry for not beeing clear.
</I>><i> >>> What I propose is not for the case 'a bug originates from more than
</I>><i> >>> one package';
</I>><i> >>> but for the case 'a bug manifests itself in than one package'.
</I>><i> >>
</I>><i> >> A bug that manifests in more than one package must originate from
</I>><i> >> 'some package', that 'some package' is the only one that should be in
</I>><i> >> the 'RPM Package' field; i.e that's the package that's going to need
</I>><i> >> fixing.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Sorry again, what I mean, and should have written, is :
</I>><i> > 'a bug manifests itself in one package, but in more than one -version-release'.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i>
</I>><i> There's no way in bugzilla to do this at the moment (there's talk
</I>><i> about this being implemented in bugzilla-4.0, which I haven't tried
</I>><i> before). Traditionally the Whiteboard field was used for such issues
</I>><i> (or separate reports were opened for each affected stable release).
</I>><i> Having a multi-line RPM Package wouldn't be the way to go with this
</I>><i> (IMHO).
</I>><i>
</I>
In fact I think Frederic was talking about several versions of the same package, not necessarily several versions of the distribution. However, I don't think we can or should ask people to write down every package version which has the bug.
We can guess many things automatically, provided the information is of good quality (the RPM/SRPM field always has a complete filename in it, and all affected versions of the distribution are flagged, whatever the way used for that : multivalue field when it'll be possible, whiteboard meanwhile...).
For those who don't wan't to read everything, example 1 may be enough, I'm just trying to cover several cases, not that every case brings something really important to the discussion. My point in those examples is that we can provide useful information regarding bugs on packages in software managers or mageia-app-db, but that depends on the information present in the bug reports, that's what I'd like this to be taken into account in bug handling processes.
-- Example 1 : bug in stable release (core/release) + cauldron --
foo-3.4-1mga2011.0.src.rpm has a bug in Mageia 2011.0 (stable release, the package is in core/release), and the bug is also present in cauldron. We know it is in 2011.0/core/release because we have the exact SRPM name and affected distribution versions in the bug report.
1) 2011.0/core/release contains foo-3.4-1mga2011.0.src.rpm
2) 2011.0/core/updates contains foo-3.4-2mga2011.0.src.rpm
3) 2011.0/core/updates_testing contains foo-3.4-3mga2011.0.src.rpm
4) 2011.0/core/backports contains foo-3.5-1mga2011.0.src.rpm
5) 2011.0/core/backports_testing contains foo-3.5-2mga2011.0.src.rpm
6) cauldron contains foo-3.5-1mga2011.1.src.rpm
Now suppose we are in mageia-app-db, on each of those SRPMs' page (or on the RPMs pages that have those SRPMs as source RPMs). What can we tell regarding the bug we are talking about ?
1) bug is present, this is the exact version that has the bug
2) bug is present, because the bug report is still open
3) we can't tell, that's a testing package. We can at least say : "the current version in core/updates has the following bugs, maybe this testing package fixes them ? Please consult the following bug reports and test"
4) trickier. I would try the following guess : bug is still open in cauldron, so it's probably present in the backport too. However if the bug is fixed in cauldron we can say nothing more than : "the version in updates has the bug, cauldron hasn't, maybe the backport also hasn't the bug?".
5) same as 4)
6) easy : if cauldron is still mentioned in the bug report (as the version or on the whiteboard), then the bug is still valid. If there was a separate bug report which is closed, then the bug is fixed.
Of course I assume we don't close a bug as fixed on a stable distribution version if there was no update to fix the bug (update, not backport).
-- Example 2 : bug in stable release (core/updates) + cauldron --
foo-3.4-2mga2011.0.src.rpm has a bug in Mageia 2011.0 (stable release, the package is in core/release), and the bug is also present in cauldron.
Same as example 1, except that we cannot tell if the bug is present in case 1) : 2011/core/release
- either it wasn't and was introduced in an update
- or it was already there
What we would do in mageia-app-db is tell "an update for this RPM has a the following bug, it may or may not be also present in this package". However in this case few people are still interested in the package in core/release (we may even hide those packages by default when there's an update and keep them only for advanced users).
-- Example 3 : bug in stable release (core/updates_testing) --
foo-3.4-3mga2011.0.src.rpm has a bug in Mageia 2011.0 (stable release, the package is in core/updates_testing).
1) we can't say much, so we'll not show this bug report
2) we can't say much, so we'll not show this bug report
3) that's the package which has the bug
4) not concerned
5) not concerned
6) not concerned
You could say "Hey, this example shows nothing useful", and at first I thought the same, but in fact because we know the exact version of package which has the bug (thanks to the RPM/SRPM field + distribution version field) we know we won't bother users about this bug if they consult 1), 2), 4), 5) or 6).
-- Example 4 : bug in stable release (core/backports) --
foo-3.5-1mga2011.0.src.rpm has a bug in Mageia 2011.0 (stable release, the package is in core/backports).
1) we can't say much, so we'll not show this bug report
2) we can't say much, so we'll not show this bug report
3) we can't say much, so we'll not show this bug report
4) that's the package which has the bug
5) we can't tell, that's a testing package. We can at least say : "the current version in core/backports has the following bugs, maybe this testing package fixes them ? Please consult the following bug reports and test"
6) we can't tell, but it's interesting to mention that the package in 4) has the bug, they may be related
Regards
Samuel Verschelde
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001874.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1865">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1865">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1865">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1865">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
