On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:38:40PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:06:17AM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > I object. We should fix, rather than disable, it. Could you
> > please try the following code instead?
> Sorry, I won't have access to the s390 systems until Monday so I
> can't do this now. I have uploaded the NMU for i386 and s390 to
> incoming - if you or anybody else objects, just remove the files
> there.
Uh. You didn't file bugs for the things you fixed, nor did you send a
patch to the BTS. That is incredibly poor form.
> debootstrap 0.1.15.x did not contain the initctl patch and worked
> fine
It worked fine on some architectures, and not others.
> It already took me several hours to find the problem so I'm not very
> interested in spending even more time trying different variants of
> this hack.
If this is your attitude to the package, then you shouldn't be NMUing
the package. Either get it right, or don't do it at all.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
The daffodils are coming. Are you?
linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia
--- http://linux.conf.au/
Attachment:
pgpLZ8JbXegm8.pgp
Description: PGP signature