cdebootstrap wontfix tag abuse
Henning Makholm wrote:
> I think this counts as abuse of the wontfix tag. Setting the tag is
> *never* a substitute for explaining (or referencing an explanation of)
> why one thinks the problem should not be solved.
I encountered this bug now, and asked myself - what should one do?
Obviously the maintainer, or someone else involved, could do a better
job handling bug reports. The thought of removing all unexplained
wontfix tags struck me, but BTS ping pong is hardly never the right
thing to do...
I found a segmentation fault, but I won't bother reporting it - since I
feel it'll probably only result in a wontfix tagging solution.
In my attempts to google for cdebootstrap, the only useful I found was
this quote from the following page:
http://vds.pas-mal.com/irclogs/vserver-log.20050111.txt
"
[00:38] <Pazzo> what are the benefits of cdebootstrap over debootstrap?
[00:38] <Seraph> cdebootstrap is coded in C and about powers of ten faster
[00:38] <Seraph> plus it's the new and maintained replacement
[00:39] <Seraph> whereas debootstrap is rather "only updated where needed" afaik
"
That doesn't give me much to go on if I would want to write a better
description for the package myself.
--
/Martin
Reply to: