On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:22:09 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote: [...] > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Ross Boylan wrote: > > I just ran into this bug again, though I haven't seen it for a few > > months. > > You haven't seen it for a while because presumably there weren't any > bugs filed against texlive-latex-base with severity serious. I don't think so: as far as *I* am concerned, I hadn't experienced this bug since October 1st 2008, because that was the last time texlive-latex-base migrated to testing. See http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/texlive-base.html I suppose the same holds for Ross: he probably upgraded texlive-latex-base back on October and then yesterday (or today)... As far as texlive-latex-base is concerned, there is one RC bug currently outstanding (#483217), but it's not the one which is causing trouble. The problem is generated by a resolved RC bug (#356853), where the fixed-version 2007-14 is taken as an invalid date. By the way, I cannot understand why bug #356853 seems to never get archived (maybe because it's still present in stable?). > > That said, AFAICT, the underlying problem of this bug as far as the > BTS is concerned has indeed been fixed.[1] We do not send date/time > xsl types out in the SOAP request any more, so any Date/Time issues > that are happening are because of what ruby's SOAP implementation is > doing. Please help us: could you try and identify where the problem lies in ruby's SOAP implementation? I am a SOAP ignorant, so I cannot be of much help here... > > If you see this again, please send me the entire output from the BTS > either generated by apt-listbugs or using tcpdump with appropriate > options. [The latter is probably more useful.] Bug #493632 is related: it was originally filed against apt-listbugs about the issue under consideration, and then it was limited to one aspect of the issue (the fact that "the way apt-listbugs handles the situation is at least a minor bug"). This bug (I mean: #493632) includes some dumps: have you looked at those already? Otherwise, could you please specify which "appropriate" options should be passed to tcpdump in order to capture the entire BTS output? I am no tcpdump expert, but I could try and obtain something useful: after downgrading texlive-latex-base (to version 2007.dfsg.1-4), I could try to upgrade it again (to version 2007.dfsg.1-5); apt-listbugs will query the BTS about texlive-latex-base bugs and it will choke on its response with a "W: invalid date" message; at that point tcpdump should be able to capture the BTS response... By the way, if you install apt-listbugs, you could even perform this test by yourself, so that you can see exactly what you want to see! Please let me know. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND "nano-documents" may lead you to my website... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpfSoBgSgcjv.pgp
Description: PGP signature