Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

[Marc Joliet]

Am Dienstag, 10. Oktober 2017, 02:57:21 CEST schrieb Grant Edwards:
> On 2017-10-09, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 9, 2017, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com>
wrote:
> >> On 2017-10-09, allan gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote:
> >>> This is a know bug see https://bugs.gentoo.org/633790
> >>
> >> Yep, that's it.  Yet when you search for roundingflags or
> >> shapedtextflags in Gentoo's bugzilla, it finds nothing.  Has the
> >> search feature in Bugzilla ever worked?
> >
> > It's pretty limited.

Do you still think so when you consider the advanced search (or the saved 
search feature)?  Just curious, since I don't tend to perform complicated 
searches in any of the bug trackers I use.

> You're being too kind.  It's broken.  According to the bugzilla web
> page, the search includes the summary/description (as one might
> expect), but it doesn't actually _do_ that.

It does exactly what it says, e.g., when I search for qt I see:

"     Status: UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED, IN_PROGRESS Alias: qt Summary: qt "

And it shows me exactly that: bugs with qt in the summary or as part of the 
alias that have their status set to UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED, or IN_PROGRESS.  
(Note that it does *not* search the description by default, and doesn't claim 
to, either!)

Now, it could be that other search filters are preventing you from finding 
bugs.  For example, as in my above example, bugs with their status set to 
"RESOLVED" or "VERIFIED" are not searched by default (searching only for 
VERIFIED found 120 additional bugs).  Or, more likely, your search strings 
simply aren't part of the summary.

Of course, it's not like I actively like bugzilla, but it's not quite 
"broken", either.  "Baroque" might be a better word ;) .

-- 
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup