* Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, since your awesome efforts last time, everyone here already > knows you're the most polite bug reporter, absolutely fair and
I'm really tired of your boring personal attacks. Can't you come up with some more interesting ? Maybe a polar weather report or an fallen over rice bag ? ... > Your solution to that bug was charming and short: Dump what you > didn't see making sense In fact: yes. It doesn't make sense to me that startup is refused if the files do not seem to be owned by the current user. Eons ago it had been okay, but today (with ACLs) this is really no reliable source on permissions. > (is that what you said about things being "invalid" ?) NO. The bug, so the whole issue (not my patch), was declared invalid. This means nothing else that "there is no problem". > -- instead of complicated solutions like e.g. using readlink(1) > and keeping at least the functionality in there. At the point where my bug was declared invalid, there was no more motivation for me to think about that. Why wasn't you solution just said in the bug, as response of mine ? Then I just would have tried it and we had seen if worked. But obviously there's not cooperation wanted w/ me. Neither my fault nor my problem. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
