On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Debian Bug Tracking System <ow...@bugs.debian.org> wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the linux-2.6 package: > > #636123: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64: root filesystem (LVM) not recognised > > It has been closed by Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>. > > Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. > If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a > better one in a separate message then please contact Ben Hutchings > <b...@decadent.org.uk> by > replying to this email. > > > -- > 636123: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=636123 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> > To: 636123-d...@bugs.debian.org > Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:43:28 +0100 > Subject: Re: Bug#636123: "fixed" the problem: broken/missing dependency > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 05:51 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2011-07-31 at 14:37 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> >> ok - i've established the cause of the failure: incorrect dependencies >> >> in linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64. >> > >> > This is not relevant. The kernel does not depend on a userland library. >> >> yeah... i did wonder about that. unfortunately, i've demonstrated >> otherwise. > > You've done nothing of the sort.
i'm sorry to hear that you believe so, by not trusting what i have written. > It is possible that initramfs-tools is missing a dependency, though. ah. good point. ok - i didn't manage to get round, yesterday, to raising this with a larger audience (given that it involves complex interdependencies). i'll do that today so that it can be discussed. > [...] >> that would involve de-installing / reverting the list of packages >> installed. which would involve finding them, first (debian/testing), >> probably from source, because debian/testing is a moving target and i >> last updated 3 months ago. > [...] >> so you'll forgive me if i don't go down that route, eh? > [...] > > Fine, closing this. that is a stupid response that does not help [resolve the issue]. i refrained from saying that the person some eight months ago who also decided that a bugreport should be closed after providing valuable information [by reverting a package AGAINST debian policy], was making a stupid decision, because i trusted that you would see that that was clearly not in the best interests of debian stability and useability and would make a sensible decision. i have reopened the bugreport - because the issue is clearly not resolved - so that other people can contribute to the discussion and get some ideas on how this can be fixed. that _may_ involve reassigning this bugreport to a different package and i would greatly appreciate it if you could not close this bugreport and make extra work for myself or anyone else who is interested in resolving this bugreport. thanks. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
