From esr at thyrsus.com Fri Nov 7 13:13:53 2003 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0588567906990150928==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Eric S. Raymond To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: RPM submission script Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:19:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20031107181926.GA15796@thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: 1068226936.5055.148.camel@opus --===============0588567906990150928== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable seth vidal : > > Eric, this seems very nice. My lack of knowledge in the RFC area thoug= h = > > brings me to ask if you could provide a small example of a = > > "RFC822-like" message? Another project I manage is pressuring me to = > > move away from bugzilla so that our users/developers can submit bugs = > > w/out using the web interface. > = > rfc822 =3D=3D email. Yeah, what he said. Headers are various metadata, the body is the description. Here's what the last version of my test load looked like: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Product: TestProduct Component: TestComponent Version: other Priority: P2 Keywords: mock Status: FUBAR Severity: normal Summary: Eric's test bug for the submit script #20 This version tries to merge in data from options. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thing about this format is that it's trivial to generate using a shellscript. I expect fedora-submit to be no more than about 30 lines of code. Your other project could write its own submission wrapper -- the fact that (as you note) this is a more generally useful capability is what would justify adding bug-bugzilla to Fedora core. (You can find it = in the contrib directory of Bugzilla CVS.) Who's the gatekeeper for these decisions, and who's in charge of packaging the Fedora RPM tools? This is a small, easy addition with big benefits; I think it should definitely go in FC2. -- = Eric S. Raymond --===============0588567906990150928==--