Hi All.
I was poking around the bug tracker to familiarize myself with the current bug tracking/resolution process, as I wish to contribute to the Bug Team in the near future.
For example, I looked at Bug #38 and noticed that it was resolved by msoulier, who I believe is a Mitel person. What he did was to post a new rpm as e-smith-backup-1.13.2-01.noarch.rpm at
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/e-smith/devel/RPMS/i386So, I assume the process went something like this...
I assume that Mitel maintains a CVS that is canonical for their SME server code and that msoulier checked out the code for the e-smith-backup made changes to the code, tested it, and then re-created the RPM and posted it to the e-smith/devel area on ibiblio.org. Finally, I assume that msoulier did a checkin of the changes that resolved the bug back into the Mitel canonical CVS so that their MAS6000 system would also benefit from the bug resolution.
So, this is my round about way of asking two questions:
1)
Does, or will, the contribs group have a canonical CVS for all code directly under the purview of contribs.org (i.e. the e-smith-* packages)? Certainly having a CVS would also serve as a learning tool for newer users.
2)
Is there one authoritative place for new RPMS/SRPMS to be posted once a bug is resolved. I had to do a bit of looking to find e-smith-backup-1.13.2-01.noarch.rpm and wondered why it wasn't posted at
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/smeserver/updates/6.0.1I would certainly like to know the practices and procedures used at Mitel to manage change of the code base and the subsequent generation of RPMS/SRPMS. I wonder if the "best practices" would be considered proprietary, or if some of the Mitel/e-smith folk on contribs.org would like to share some advice.
David
1 Replies
892 Views