On Friday 22 November 2013, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 11/22/2013 03:00 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote:
On Thursday 21 November 2013, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 21. November 2013, 14:16:48 schrieb Claudio Freire:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Stefan Behlert <behlert@suse.de> wrote:
..
This would mena that someone has to do this e.g. for all referenced security bugs, all SLES/SLED bugs and much more.
Supposedly, the work for extracting a minimal description of the bug into a public source would be small compared to actually fixing the bug.
True, but this can be done directly in the .changes file. Some description about the change had to be written there anyway.
If that description is not good enough openSUSE-Factory maintainers can of course reject the package.
Well, IMO the maintainer can only objectively rate the description if he also can't access the bnc.
But please keep in mind that openSUSE is currently using SUSE bugzilla. I do not think want to double the effort to maintain an own bug system and to sync the data always. So we need some compromise here.
Of course we could also build in some OBS feature to track some data elsewhere and jsut generate it inside when it got built within a different context. But I think it will create too much confusion for most people.
Actually I don't understand the problem completely. Are SLES customers able to access all the bugs?
SLES customers report bugs to NTS which then open bugs - and partners report directly to NTS. Both groups might include private information. Partners for example have only access to the bugs they reported,
So then it's even annoying for SLES customers to see all these private references. Suse should track their private references elsewhere as you mentioned. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org