Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
- From: Eike Sauer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:14:02 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <QHnM.SA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <QHnM.SA.email@example.com> <QHnM.SA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <QHnM.SA.email@example.com> <QHnM.SA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <QHnM.SA.email@example.com> <QHnM.SA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <QHnM.SA.email@example.com> <QHnM.SA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <QIMJ.email@example.com>
Robert Millan schrieb:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Eike Sauer wrote:
>> Robert Millan schrieb:
>> > I don't see why. I have a bunch of resources to find a solution for
>> > this trivial bug.
> I didn't want to imply that. I was referring to general packaging
> resources like preinst script, debconf, etc.
These are not ressources to *find* bugs AFAIK.
It still seems to me you are not very concerned about
squashing bugs and/or preserving features *before* releasing.
> Agreed. But the discussion on system.map started with someone claiming the
> bug implied either a dessign problem in my package or that I'm
It might have come up due to the wrong reasons (I don't judge),
but you have to care for it neverheless.