From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SJhVh-0001dp-LV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:42:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D845E0EB6; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C822BE0EA6 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (253.Red-95-123-35.staticIP.rima-tde.net [95.123.35.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92D9B1B4007 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:40:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About adding a way to check for bugs referring to no longer existing packages in the tree From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20120416030401.16d3efeb@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> References: <1334401347.3181.2.camel@belkin4> <20120414124245.323cba48@gentoo.org> <1334426068.3181.11.camel@belkin4> <20120415024729.52e5d909@gentoo.org> <1334483704.2557.3.camel@belkin4> <20120416030401.16d3efeb@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-A3CsRmTDMIEoGeflP5NQ" Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:40:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1334565624.2668.1.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 0b73fee6-d436-485b-897c-59fbea687fb7 X-Archives-Hash: c68f3ae62adb5d8e8039be1c09b0d981 --=-A3CsRmTDMIEoGeflP5NQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El lun, 16-04-2012 a las 03:04 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribi=C3=B3: > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:55:04 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: >=20 > > Well, I currently manually do eix searching to check it, maybe would > > be a way to compare eix outputs with "${CATEGORY}/${PKGNAME}" from bug > > summaries (bugs without that naming structure would be uncovered by > > this, but we would still be able to easily check for obsolete bug > > reports). >=20 > I only started fixing summaries to include valid, canonical > cat/pkg[-ver] strings a few years ago because searching for a full > atom in bugzilla's search would otherwise (and still does) fail. >=20 > Before that it was mayhem, and it's mainly the older bugs you appear be > worried about. Having a list of bugs to fix the cat/pkg for would have > more uses than the one you're interested in. >=20 >=20 > jer >=20 >=20 I obviously agree, but both suggestions are not mutually exclusive I think :) --=-A3CsRmTDMIEoGeflP5NQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk+L2vgACgkQCaWpQKGI+9Q3TgCfaz1S/e4e0JMswqvHdhF5aWcS VY0An2IeyJHDK/z4Qh9Q4h/GnhM2cH2c =RPIF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-A3CsRmTDMIEoGeflP5NQ--