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
