Bug#67771: modconf or not?
Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE> writes:
> Didn't I say whiptail? Why are you reassigning it to modconf?
Sorry, brain fart.
> Please investigate the problem instead of reassigning blindly.
Sometimes I just refile w/o investigating but its better for me to
process 20 bugs and have a little inaccuracy every now and then than
just study 1 bug and deal with it.
> The bug has some connection to the boot-floppies since it happens
> through the boot-floppies/base-system. Something is different
> with whiptaill when using the root.bin and using base2_2.tgz.
> Both is under control of boot-floppies.
If whiptail isn't working under the base system, that seems pretty
clearly to be a whiptail bug.
> Before reassigning next time, please prove that the bug is in the
> package reassigned to.
See above. You don't have preach to me about bug etiquette. I've
done a *lot* of bug management in the boot-floppies, and I don't think
you can generally accuse me of being sloppy.
> I'd still call it critical and we have to deal with it, people
> aren't able to use modconf *after* installation. This is a showstopper.
I still think it should be reassigned against whiptail.... I don't
know what boot-floppies could be doing to cause the problem...
I've cc'd the whiptail maintainer for comments.
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>