Re: xsesssion-errors
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:59:04 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:07:09PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
(...)
>> > > This was the message that closed it. It was sent to 617940-done and
>> > > so the bug was marked as closed. The other bug was forcibly merged
>> > > with this one and so it was closed too.
>> > >
>> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=617940#26
>> >
>> > Yes, but regardless the bug status (closed or archived) the issue
>> > persists as reported later:
>> >
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=33;bug=617940
>> >
>> > Or is that I am wrongly reading the "notfixed 617940
>> > 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2" tag?
>>
>> What I see by looking now is:
>>
>> * 617940 is/was assigned to the libvdpau1 package * notfixed 617940
>> 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 removes any indication that
>> version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was fixed.
>> * libvdpau1 never had any version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 in the
>> archive according to
>> http://packages.qa.debian.org/libv/libvdpau.html and therefore
>> marking it as not fixed does not mark any existing version as
>> buggy. The version number is just completely bogus.
>>
>> I think 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was meant to apply to mplayer not
>> libvdpau1 and therefore the intended bug maintenance actions did not
>> occur as intended. The bug remained closed and was archived according
>> to the standard schedule for closed bugs.
Oh, now you talk like the marketing people ("standard schedule") which
sounds very nice but provides little to void content for us... you know
>:-)
Now, with my user's hat on, there's only a "standard schedule" which
means fixing a problem or closing a bug report with a valid reason (you
can choose between: not a bug/not reproducible/forwarded upstream/closed
because I have a bad day, etc...)
> So what now?
Exactly. I think the "alter-ego" bug was archived just because no one
replied (I mean, "insisted" on the problem) and was silently forgotten.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: