[Mageia-dev] Proposal for bugzilla

[Samuel Verschelde]

Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 21:25:39, Michael scherer a écrit :
> 
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Frederic Janssens wrote:
> > On 2010-12-22, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 à 00:32 +0100, Frederic Janssens a écrit :
> > >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 17:07, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Le mardi 14 décembre 2010 à 17:05 +0100, Dexter Morgan a écrit :
> > >> > > I would like to have your input to let us able to provide a bugzilla
> > >> > > really soon
> > >> >
> > >> > So if I am not wrong, in bugzilla, we have :
> > >> > - products
> > >> > - component, contained in products
> > >> > - and various field, per bug,
> > >> >
> > >> > and the way we organize everything will impact the layout.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >>
> > >> In preparation of the future interaction (by xmlrpc) between the
> > >> mageia-app-db site and the mageia bugzilla,  I have been testing
> > >> http://bugs.mageia.org/ .
> > >> Xmlrpc works, but it will be necessary to configure additional fields.
> > >> The minimum would be to add an 'RPM Package' field (such as exists on
> > >> https://qa.mandriva.com/).
> > >
> > > What about component not related to rpm ?
> > 
> > The 'RPM Package' field would be left blank.
> > (usually many fields are left blank)
> 
> That's quite useless clutter in this case :/
>  
> > >
> > > And do you mean srpm or rpm ?
> > 
> > On https://qa.mandriva.com/ anything goes.
> > To permit consistent searches I think we should standardise.
> > The aim would to be to as specific as needed but not more;
> > as far as I know that would be :
> > 
> > name-version-release
> > 
> > unless the bug is architecture specific, where we would have :
> > 
> > name-version-release.architecture
> 
> There is already a "architecture" field, afaik, as well as a version field,
> no ?
> 
> ( I didn't check as I refuse to enter my password over a insecured http session ).
> 
> And I think that giving rpm ( and not srpm ) will make search a little bit complex
> in some corner cases ( can will also cause problem for the next point ). 
> 

So you think the (S)RPM field should only contain SRPM filenames ?

If yes, I agree with that, because as Frederic stated above, in current Mandriva bugzilla, there's no enforced rule for that. You can put anything in the field, and you often end up with rpm filenames, or simple package names (e.g. "virtualbox").

However asking bug reporters to know the SRPM is too much, so this rule can only be enforced on Packagers and Triage Team side I think. This is already how it works on qa.mandriva.com : if you know the SRPM, you put it, if not someone will triage and do it for you.

Ahmad, would there be a problem in enforcing such a policy (i.e. SRPM field should be empty or contain a valid SRPM name ? Where valid means "looks like the name of a SRPM") ? 

Regards

Samuel Verschelde