Hi, Claudio Saavedra wrote: > > nonsense. > > Thanks. Your attitude really moves me forward to continue reporting > (yes, probably sometimes not actually) bugs in Debian. I probably chose
In this case it was obvious that this is not a bug at all as you easily could have seen that there never was a "libsvg" package in Debian. > a wrong severity, sorry for that, and thanks for the empathic answer. This was not only the wrong severity, strictly speaking this ia *not a bug at all*, as there never was a libsvg package in Debian. People who use unofficial stuff (and stuff which broken packages, which libsvg obviously is, just judging from the package name, it does not follow Debian policy *AT ALL*) should know how to handle this and not report bugs if proper packages have problems with their unofficial packages. > > Ahaa. A discussion on IRC just revealved that it's a (broken) package > > from some beryl > > Acknowledged. It got probably installed eons ago before compiz was added > to Debian unstable. > > FWIW, I fixed the problem by removing the broken package and 'apt-get -f > install' did the rest. OK, good. > > ("Yeah, I want useless 3d eye-candy for my desktop") stuff. > > That was ranty and completely unnecessary. No, it was necessary since I *DO* believe that compiz (and beryl) are just not useful except for eye-candy. Sorry for my harsh reply, but you produced a unneeded releae-critical bug on an important package. This caused extra work, first because RRC bugs should be fixed ASAP and second because I needed to find out where this broken libsvg package came from. It was not meant personally, though, but the bug report still remains not necessary at all. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73