MHR wrote: > 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.... > Well ... we will do whatever upstream does. I can see why the GNOME project could care less though. However, the fact is that bug buddy is NOT required to make bugzilla entries for RHEL. If you have a bug, file a bug against the component that is the problem. The fact that bug buddy does not file it directly to gnome is really irrelevant as they are no longer providing any support for 2.16.x. So, when you have a problem (ignoring bug buddy, which is to gnome and not to RH), then just file the bug against the thing that is broken. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080714/dd447d16/attachment-0005.sig>