[CentOS] how to get bug fixed by TUV

Thu Jul 30 11:31:51 UTC 2015
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 07/30/2015 06:22 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
> The Redhat guys are normally responding very well to bug reports from
> Centos users. They don't seem to differentiate. Using bugs.centos.org seems
> quite pointless. I normally just use https://bugzilla.redhat.com/.

That is true, using bugs.centos.org is optional, BUT ..

If you use bugzilla.redhat.com only, then you give it to Red Hat
engineers and they can get to it when they can (between cases they have
for supported customers, etc).  They are really good at fixing things
reported, no matter who does it, when they have time .. I agree.

But the CentOS community also has many smart people in it and if we can
get some of those smart people routinely checking and validating and
even fixing issues on bugs.centos.org and putting that info on
bugzilla.redhat.com, then those fixes can get in faster still.  It is
much faster/easier to validate a fix that is already been researched and
created than to research and create the fix.

So, yes, by all means report bugs to the Red Hat bugzilla if they are
also bugs in RHEL .. but as a community we can speed up the fixes by
doing some of the legwork as a group as well.

> On 30 July 2015 at 13:12, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
>> On 07/30/2015 03:37 AM, Stijn De Weirdt wrote:
>>> hi all,
>>> i have a general question (a bit surprised ti's not on the centos faq):
>>> we found a bug in a package in a centos install, and we are wondering
>>> what the best approach is to get TUV to fix it (and release an update),
>>> so it gets fixed in centos rebuild and thus on our nodes. or at the very
>>> least to get it on their todo list ;)
>>> bugs.centos.org seems an obvious candidate to get them reported via
>>> centos to TUV, but as centos doesn't modify the sources, i'm wondering
>>> if it is the correct way.
>>> so is there a way to funnel these through bugs.centos.org to TUV, or
>>> should we get our own (minimal?) support contract with RedHat. if it's
>>> the latter, any tips what contract to choose? (money isn't really the
>>> issue if we don't have to register all our centos nodes (and i wouldn't
>>> mind having access to the KBs if that came with the contract ;))
>>> stijn
>>> the bug is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248003 (i
>>> consider it a bug and not a feature since it used to work with EL6, and
>>> people upgrading might run into this; but i guess it's all semantics ;)
>> This is a good question.
>> bugs.centos.org is out there for the CentOS Community to use to report
>> issues they find ... and for the Community to find and fix issues that
>> are reported.
>> The CentOS team will only fix issues that we "introduce" with some
>> change we make.  We will not fix issues that are also in RHEL until
>> those issues are fixed there and released in source code that we then get.
>> What this means is, we need the CentOS community to look at
>> bugs.centos.org and to see if they can validate all bugs.  We also need
>> members of the community who might also have RHEL subscriptions to see
>> if those bugs also exist in RHEL.  If they do exist in RHEL, then an
>> upstream bug should be filed there.
>> In fact, we are looking to start a program to do this ... called CentOS
>> Bug Wranglers.
>> Bugs are only going to be fixed if they are reported to Red Hat (again,
>> unless we somehow introduced them only into CentOS Linux).
>> People don't need to wait for the formal program to begin though ..
>> anyone who wants to make CentOS better can look though and validate bugs
>> and report ones that also exist in RHEL to Red Hat.  Anyone can create
>> an account on bugs.centos.org and the Red Hat bugzilla.  The only way we
>> are going to get things fixed is to work on it as a community.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150730/ded96b23/attachment-0004.sig>