Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]

To: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
Cc: "Eray Ozkural \(exa\)" <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>, Debian Developers List <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
From: Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick@debian.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 21:54:11 -0300
Message-id: <[🔎] 20010103215410.B2589@debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20010103090522.B26327@visi.net>; from bcollins@debian.org on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:05:22AM -0500
References: <[🔎] 3A5298AC.6A80E424@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> <[🔎] 20010103090522.B26327@visi.net>

> When you start saying "docs", you need to be more specific.

 But the worrying thing is that this bug should have been tagged as "more
info", and the originator should have been contacted to provide that info. I
don't think that a maintainer should close a bug report if he doesn't
understand it, or he feels that some information is missing.

 This makes me wonder how many bugs in the recent libc
mega-changelog-entries were really fixed.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
  - From: Tim Bell <bhat@trinity.unimelb.edu.au>

References:
- [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
  - From: "Eray Ozkural \(exa\)" <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
- Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
  - From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
Next by Date: Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
Next by thread: Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread