* Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010721 12:43]:
> > Can you be a bit more explicit ? Any pointer to such a report ?
>
> Uh, how about the one you are replying too :P Did you even read it?
Well, the bug submitter has never responded to your request for more
information. Santiago Garcia Mantinan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> played
around quite a bit and couldn't reproduce the problem.
What he _did_ saw was this:
14:29 < manty> Found label 'Debian GNU/Linux 2.3 "Woody" - Unofficial
i386 Binary-1
14:29 < manty> (20010720)'This Disc is called:
14:29 < manty> 'Debian GNU/Linux 2.3 _Woody_ - Unofficial i386
Binary-1 (20010720)'
14:29 < manty> Reading Package Indexes... Done
14:29 < manty> Wrote 1642 records with 5849 missing files.
14:29 < manty> Alot of entries were discarded, something may be wrong.
14:29 < manty> Reading Source Indexes... Done
14:29 < manty> Wrote 0 records with 4465 missing files.
14:29 < manty> W: No valid records were found.
14:29 < manty> E: Handler silently failed
But unless I'm missing something this is not the seg fault reported in
the bug.
> As I said before, making CD's that don't work with current APT's is
> a non-option.
The changes have been reverted anyway. But the question how to
implement it still remains open...
Anyway, apt doesn't break anymore since the code in debian-cd has been
reverted, so I suggest you downgrade this bug to important.
