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
