[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#427697: sbackup uses a non-existent group.

On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 22:39 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I need your advice for bug #427697: 

Although the bug has been open a while, the severity was only increased
a few days ago. It seems hasty to look for a forced solution IMHO.

> As far as #427697 is concerned, there are two obvious solutions:
> 1) Use a group that exists. The problems are:
>   - I am too inexperienced to pick one that makes sense,
>   - I know nothing about python, in which sbackup is programmed,

In which case, you should not even entertain ideas of hijacks.

>   - I am only interested in sbackup as a user, not as a DD, and I would
>     rather swich to an alternative if it were abandonned.
> I use sbackup at work, so I definitely would consider migrating to
> something else would the bug be rotting longer. But it would not help
> the other persons lured to use an unmaintained package, so I hope that
> something can be done.

unmaintained? On what grounds? It's been three days since the severity
was bumped.

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:57:39 +0900

> The best would of course that the maintainer himself would show some
> sign of activity. Maybe he has a mail configuration problem ?

and maybe he's just busy, like many of us.


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: