On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:18:26AM +0200, Martin Bähr wrote: > mkj: could you possibly share some email conversations you had about bugs you > found. > including current fedora but also centOS since some issues there may have made > it into fedora as well. you can send that to me privately.
I don't have email conversations to share. Brett would be the one who could share them for CentOS; there, I haven't been involved. A bug that we found and reported in Fedora (in python) turned out to be an upstream Python3 bug. We worked around it (the workaround was an improvement for Fedora anyway...) and Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda at Red Hat nailed it down to the upstream bug, implemented the fix with a test case, and pushed it upstpream. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060338 For packaging bugs we find, our intent was to review and summarize after getting up to date because we don't want to report stale bugs. The biggest bug (from our perspective) that we have found so far is conflicting path contents and/or attributes. There are a bunch of packages that share file names but have conflicting contents/attributes between architectures. We have a complete list of paths by package. It was our intention to review this after we got the import up to date so as not to file stale bugs. If you want to look at the list we found, check out: factory-capsule-rpm=f20s1.flnx.org@f:20s1-c and look through pathConflictsExceptions near the end of the file. To be clear, archExceptions below that are definitely not bugs; instead, they are expressions where a package not existing on all architectures is understood to not be a bug. By default, we do not want to package versions that are incomplete across architectures (say, from a partial mirror) and so we have to be explicit about all intentional exceptions. _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
