Bug#636123: closed by Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#636123: "fixed" the problem: broken/missing dependency)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Debian Bug Tracking System
<owner@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> which was filed against the linux-2.6 package:
>
> #636123: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64: root filesystem (LVM) not recognised
>
> It has been closed by Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>.
>
> Their explanation is attached below along with your original report.
> If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a
> better one in a separate message then please contact Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> by
> replying to this email.
>
>
> --
> 636123: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=636123
> Debian Bug Tracking System
> Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> To: 636123-done@bugs.debian.org
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:43:28 +0100
> Subject: Re: Bug#636123: "fixed" the problem: broken/missing dependency
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 05:51 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2011-07-31 at 14:37 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> >> ok - i've established the cause of the failure: incorrect dependencies
>> >> in linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64.
>> >
>> > This is not relevant. The kernel does not depend on a userland library.
>>
>> yeah... i did wonder about that. unfortunately, i've demonstrated
>> otherwise.
>
> You've done nothing of the sort.
i'm sorry to hear that you believe so, by not trusting what i have written.
> It is possible that initramfs-tools is missing a dependency, though.
ah. good point.
ok - i didn't manage to get round, yesterday, to raising this with a
larger audience (given that it involves complex interdependencies).
i'll do that today so that it can be discussed.
> [...]
>> that would involve de-installing / reverting the list of packages
>> installed. which would involve finding them, first (debian/testing),
>> probably from source, because debian/testing is a moving target and i
>> last updated 3 months ago.
> [...]
>> so you'll forgive me if i don't go down that route, eh?
> [...]
>
> Fine, closing this.
that is a stupid response that does not help [resolve the issue]. i
refrained from saying that the person some eight months ago who also
decided that a bugreport should be closed after providing valuable
information [by reverting a package AGAINST debian policy], was making
a stupid decision, because i trusted that you would see that that was
clearly not in the best interests of debian stability and useability
and would make a sensible decision.
i have reopened the bugreport - because the issue is clearly not
resolved - so that other people can contribute to the discussion and
get some ideas on how this can be fixed.
that _may_ involve reassigning this bugreport to a different package
and i would greatly appreciate it if you could not close this
bugreport and make extra work for myself or anyone else who is
interested in resolving this bugreport.
thanks.
l.
Reply to: