Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
* Nicolás Lichtmaier (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> But the worrying thing is that this bug should have been tagged as "more
> info", and the originator should have been contacted to provide that info. I
> don't think that a maintainer should close a bug report if he doesn't
> understand it, or he feels that some information is missing.
> This makes me wonder how many bugs in the recent libc
> mega-changelog-entries were really fixed.
My case is similar in some respects, so I thought I'd mention it.
The symptoms of bug #77170 (which I've mentioned on this list previously)
are still exhibited, even though the bug's been closed. I've exchanged
some email with Ben (see the bugreport log) on this subject. His last
comment was that he thought it was pthread-related. I countered with
an example which wasn't, and the conversation stopped there, with the
bug not re-opened. As I commented in the last message, I wouldn't like
this to make it into stable with this bug, which prevents apache+php+ldap
Now I'm sure Ben is plenty busy with libc6 and whatever else he does,
and I don't mean to blame him for this slipping through. But the
thought that bugs are getting closed without being fixed is worrying.
In this case, if the bug isn't with the particular package it's reported
to, it should be reassigned to the correct package (if known), or put
somewhere where it will be found again. Losing bug reports for problems
which still exist is not going to help with quality assurance.
Oh, that all should have been prefixed with IANADD...
Tim Bell - email@example.com - System Administrator & Programmer
Trinity College, Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia