[Switching to -maintonly for #557091 too.] On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:20:58AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote: > I don't know what you are talking about. I think that's because you misunderstood me. > > There already is a bug report (#562198) against latex-cjk-chinese > > which I suspect (but am not sure) is this same bug, but this #557091 > > bug report is generally what you (or at least I) would find when > > encountering this problem, so thought the info would be nice here too. > > Wrong. How do you come to the conclusion? If you would have read the > bug report you would have seen my email: Sorry, I was unclear (if I guess right how you interpreted my words). I didn't mean to claim that #562198 is the same bug as #557091, but that #562198 is the same bug I was seeing. My bad. My rationale was, however, that if I had come to #557091 looking for clues, I probably am not the only one doing so, so having this information in that bug report would do good for others. Why? Well, I'm talking about configuring the package failing in exactly the same way, modulo some obscure log file which it says it produced under /tmp. I did read both reports, thank you for asking, found #557091 when looking for solution and thought for a good while it was the same bug, since it manifested so similarly. I guess seeing it from a package maintainer POV might be different, but to me, and I believe to many other normal users, bugs that manifest themselves with the _exact_same_output_ when configuring the package do indeed seem quite similar. I could tell after investigating for half an hour that they aren't the same, and thought I should save other people from having to spend that time (if they have the skills) by having that info in the #557091 bug. > Well, anyway, useless time spent. All has been dealt with already, > and reading bug reports is not too much asked for. > > Best wishes > > Norbert Sami
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature