Re: how to handle bugs with known workarounds?
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:25:47PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> - wrong, because the workaround needs to be applied in the apt-move
> package, until bash's behaviour is confirmed and fixed.
Huh? There is no bug in apt-move. I would've applied the workaround if
bash were the only candidate for /bin/sh, but it isn't.
> - unnecessary, because you already submitted a separate report for
> bash (#67519).
Fair enough, but why did you reopen them when there isn't any bug in apt-move?
> - misleading, because nobody finds the report and opens a new report.
Well you shouldn't have reopened them then, people can still see closed bugs
for 30 days you know. And if the bug in bash is still there after 30 days,
it's probably time to take some action anyway.
> Hmm, I thought my request was clear: make apt-move work without a
> fixed bash package. What's wrong with this approach?
I personally don't see why that would be necessary in woody considering the
bug is probably quite easy to fix in bash. If you need a hand, just let me
know.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: