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

Re: Processed: reassign 676001 to busybox

On 08.06.2012 15:28, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:59:26PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> [Adding debian-devel@ to the Cc list]
>> Short story (and it is short): the bug has been filed
>> against initramfs-tools initially, it is about how
>> /proc and /sys filesystem should be handled in initramfs
>> when switching to new root.  Original reporter included
>> a trivial patch for initramfs that does re-mounting of
>> these filesystems.  Max reassigned it to busybox without
>> giving any reasonings or comments whatsoever.  I explained
>> that it is none of switch_root business, in
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676001#24 ,
>> and asked to not reassign bugs without giving a word of
>> explanation.  After a few days of inactivity I reassigned
>> this bug back to initramfs, per my explanation.  Now max
>> reassigned it back.
> no, no, you get the story wrong.
> The bug on initramfs-tools side is fixed^Wworked-around.
> I reassigned the *cloned* bug to busybox to have it properly
> fixed there.

Aha.  This makes MUCH more sense now.  Somehow I thought you
reassigned just the original bugreport to busybox.

> please get an ice cream and keep cool.
> No need to make a drama out of a simple single bug.

Without the above explanation ("cloned"), it looked to me
like completely wrong thing to do from your side, and
indeed, I become very upset seeing a reassign again without
explanations/comments (these were somehow received later,
after I already sent the "hot" email out).  That's exactly
what I talked about on the initial reassignment -- lack of
any comments.  Now when you explained and I actually looked
at the bug history and noticed the clone operation (#660297),
things become real again.

And no, I can't get an ice cream.  I've a flu currently with
body temperature being 38.6°C, so I guess an ice cream may do
more harm than good.

And in this context, I can buy the argument about busybox not
implementing switch_root functionality from util-linux.

Thank you for explaining things, and I'm sorry for being
upset for nothing.


Reply to: