On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 05:58:06PM -0500, Chris Ruffin wrote:
> > > Package: debbugs
> > >
> > > I think this is a bug in debbugs- it clearly states that the package
> > > maintainer for the report is [EMAIL PROTECTED] (correct) and then
> > > states that it wasn't able to find a maintainer for the package, and
> > > didn't forward the report to the maintainer, but sent it to the QA
> > > list instead.
> >
> > This is actually logical. The page header displays the current information,
> > whereas the message header displays the information that was current at the
> > time the message was received.
>
> I think we misunderstand each other- note that the beginning of the
> message says: "Maintainer for electric is Chris Ruffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;"
>
> And later it says that:
>
> You requested that the message be sent to the package maintainer(s)
> but either the Bug report is not associated with any package (probably
> because of a missing Package pseudo-header field in the original Bug
> report), or the package(s) specified do not have any maintainer(s).
>
> But I happen to know that:
>
> 1) The package header was there, and
> 2) The bug report is associated with a package:
>
> Package: electric; Reported by: Chris Ruffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> dated Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:03:21 UTC; Maintainer for electric is Chris
> Ruffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Source for electric is electric.
>
> So, logically, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the message
> is that the "package(s) specified do not have any maintainer(s).",
> which of course is a contradiction.
Please reread what I wrote :) The maintainer for electric _is_ "Chris Ruffin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" right now, but it wasn't when the mail was initially
received. That part of the bug report was written at that time, and it
doesn't get changed now that the maintainer is recognized.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
