Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Control: tag -1 - sid jessie
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (2015-02-28):
Debian Bug Tracking System ow...@bugs.debian.org (2015-02-28):
tags 757413 + sid jessie
Bug #757413 {Done: Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com} [partman-target]
debian-installer: Please do not add mount point on /media/usb0 because
create conflict with mount point create by kdm desktop session
Added tag(s) sid and jessie.
Again?
No argumentation, so removing tags again.
Meh,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Processing control commands:
tag -1 - sid jessie
Bug #757413 {Done: Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com} [partman-target]
debian-installer: Please do not add mount point on /media/usb0 because create
conflict with mount point create by kdm desktop session
Removed tag(s) sid and jessie.
--
757413: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757413
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Hi Cyril, On Sonntag, 8. März 2015, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Again? No argumentation, so removing tags again. the bug shows up on http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=wheezyrc=1sortby=idsorto=descctags=1 - and as thus gets on the radar of people caring about fixing RC bugs in stable and AFAICS this bug is not RC for wheezy. So I would like it to not show up on that URL... So, shall we tag it wheezy-ignore instead? (so cc:ing -release@ for input.) cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org (2015-03-08): On Sonntag, 8. März 2015, Cyril Brulebois wrote: I'm not sure what your “AFAICS” covers. literally: as far as I can see... Based on what? I've already explained this code has been here for 10 years. People have already complained about this against wheezy. the impact is less severe on wheezy, again AFAIK. Based on what? Can we please try not to sweep it under the rug, and instead try to reproduce + fix it?! Making it not ring unneeded alarms is not sweeping it under the rug. That said, I'll leave the bug alone now. Who said they are unneeded? That's what I asked in my first reply. You didn't mention anything. And now you're tagging that bug report again, without any further explanations. Letting that bug report in a proper state means we have a chance that someone who cares actually investigates the wheezy situation instead of wild guessing. That means possibly landing a fix in wheezy. That's been my plan from the start, I'd appreciate not having to fight to keep the bug report in a suitable state… KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org (2015-03-08): On Sonntag, 8. März 2015, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Again? No argumentation, so removing tags again. the bug shows up on http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=wheezyrc=1sortby=idsorto=descctags=1 - and as thus gets on the radar of people caring about fixing RC bugs in stable and AFAICS this bug is not RC for wheezy. I'm not sure what your “AFAICS” covers. I've already explained this code has been here for 10 years. People have already complained about this against wheezy. Looking at bug reports whose title contains fstab lets you find some occurrences. Can we please try not to sweep it under the rug, and instead try to reproduce + fix it?! KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Hi, On Sonntag, 8. März 2015, Cyril Brulebois wrote: I'm not sure what your “AFAICS” covers. literally: as far as I can see... I've already explained this code has been here for 10 years. People have already complained about this against wheezy. the impact is less severe on wheezy, again AFAIK. Can we please try not to sweep it under the rug, and instead try to reproduce + fix it?! Making it not ring unneeded alarms is not sweeping it under the rug. That said, I'll leave the bug alone now. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Debian Bug Tracking System ow...@bugs.debian.org (2015-02-28):
tags 757413 + sid jessie
Bug #757413 {Done: Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com} [partman-target]
debian-installer: Please do not add mount point on /media/usb0 because create
conflict with mount point create by kdm desktop session
Added tag(s) sid and jessie.
Again?
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
control: tags -1 - sid jessie Hi, Looking at git log -SUSBDEVICES quickly, this code path has been here for 10+ years (in various forms). That's also confirmed by Gaudenz in #761815's bug log. I don't think a jessie tag is appropriate. then why don't you remove it while you're at it writing this helpful explaination? cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org (2015-02-19): control: tags -1 - sid jessie Ta. Looking at git log -SUSBDEVICES quickly, this code path has been here for 10+ years (in various forms). That's also confirmed by Gaudenz in #761815's bug log. I don't think a jessie tag is appropriate. then why don't you remove it while you're at it writing this helpful explaination? Because you might have had some good reasons, so I thought I'd wait for some feedback before removing the tags. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#757413: Processed: jessie
Hi, On Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2015, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Because you might have had some good reasons, so I thought I'd wait for some feedback before removing the tags. ah! feel free to directly adjust bugs I tag (or otherwise triage, really), especially as long as I'll see them that I can always correct / reply. And usually you are more knowledgable about d-i anyway. cheers, Holger (subscribed to -boot and -release, where most of my tagging ends up) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
