Hi Helge,
I'm sorry the text you replied you disappointed you, as it just was a template
text which I've used to close quite some bugs. The parts mostly applicable
to 633306 were:
On Montag, 2. September 2013, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > - they have been from a development phase where things were not stable
> > and/or
and
> > - they are quite old (and thus likely fixed today) and/or
so, dear submitter: is 633306 fixed with the wheezy images? with current sid
ones? As said: it's easy to reopen and I'll happily do so,
> > If I've closed a bug incorrectly please do reply (it's easy to reopen and
> > I'll do if requested) or just file a new one - thats often better, as
> > the bug log will be clearer and shorter and not contain cruft.
>
> Well, given the very broad statement without any clear indication to
> which sub issue you are referring it is hard to see which part should
> be reopened / which was closed incorrectly.
As you will know, it's possible to clone bugs. You can even do this yourself.
And then use bug titles...
> And I'm not going to zap
> the disk for a possible new bug report which might simply get closed
> again without comment in 2015 or so.
>
> Disappointed.
If you care so much about 633306, why wasnt there a reply from you to
this bug since 2 years?
The complete silence on this bug since it was filed _plus_ the fact that it
mixes 5 issues _plus_ that it was from early wheezy development, made
me conclude its best to close it. If there are still issues present today, new
bug reports are best.
cheers,
Holger trying to make "useful bugs" visible:
http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/multi/installation-reports,debian-installer,.png
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.