[CentOS] Bug-buddy and bug reports for GNOME 2.16...

There seems to be some hostility to the idea of this being a GNOME or
Evolution problem:

Bug 542280 – Refuses to report bugs because gnome 2.16.x is too old
View Bug Activity
Product: 	bug-buddy
Component: 	general
Version: 	2.16.x
Status: 	RESOLVED
Resolution: 	WONTFIX
Opened by Mark Hull-Richter (reporter, points: 3)
2008-07-09 23:40 UTC [reply]

On CentOS 5.2 (and 5.1 and 5.0, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux of the
same versions, which happen to be the most current ones available),
the bug buddy "tool" consistently refuses to report any bugs because
it claims that the version of Gnome is too old.

This is unacceptable - Gnome 2.16.x is the /standard/ release with
RHEL and CentOS distributions of Linux/Gnome.  There are too many
issues that can (and do) come up for the tool simply to refuse to
report a bug for this reason.

Comment #1 from Cosimo Cecchi (points: 22)
2008-07-14 20:29 UTC [reply]

This is intentional and isn't a bug-buddy issue. Bugzilla only accepts
crashers from the two most recent stable releases (e.g. now that 2.22
is the current stable, it rejects everything <= 2.19.99). This is
because we can't support every stable branch, as the codebases evolve
and backporting fixes would be nearly impossible. If you need a
specific fix, please backport it yourself in your distribution (like
RHEL does I think) or just use newer releases. I'm closing this as
WONTFIX, please file a bug under bugzilla.gnome.org component if you
need more explanations, thanks.

Comment #2 from Andre Klapper (points: 28)
2008-07-14 20:46 UTC [reply]

It's not our problem that CentOS and RHEL ship ancient software. Ask
them to patch bug-buddy to report against their distribution bug
tracker instead of GNOME Bugzilla. We are definitely not interested in
bugs that probably have been fixed for ages and 95% of those ancient
reports are dups anyway. If you volunteer to triage all that useless
incoming stuff, okay. We definitely don't want to, we got better stuff
to spend our time on than 2.16 that in fact nobody works on, except
for two LTS distros.


LTS?  Long Term Support?

So much for that effort.

Any chance of CentOS (or RHEL) patching bug-buddy as suggested in #2,
above?  Just curious....

Thanks, all.

mhr