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

Re: Some RC bug work

Hi Russ,

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:07:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

> I don't believe the following bugs are RC:

> #255582  gpdf
>     I was unable to reproduce this bug in testing, and from the reports it
>     sounded like it should be easily reproducible.  Perhaps it has since
>     cleared up due to library migrations?  Mailed the two people who
>     reported it and asked them to check, and one of them wrote back to say
>     they were no longer seeing this either.

The bug was tagged "grave" on the 26th of July, which was not so long
ago.  Perhaps you could ask Tim Dijkstra <tim@famdijkstra.org> for more
details about his environment (versions of library dependencies)?

I can't reproduce it here either on a fully up-to-date sid, so I think
it's reasonable to downgrade it -- but more follow-up is needed.

> #260428  affiche
>     Reporter was using affiche under a non-GNUstep environment, which
>     isn't really its intended usage.  I was unable to reproduce the bug
>     under fvwm2, although the behavior of the application is a little odd.
>     I would attribute that to not running under GNUstep, though.

I've followed up to this bug with the results of my own test.  A
backtrace from someone able to reproduce this on i386 would be good,
though, to confirm we're looking at the same bug.  (I don't currently
have an i386 machine with a local X server running, and remote display
doesn't work due to heavy dependencies on XShm in affiche.)

> #261319  dhcp-client
>     Behavior with regards to /etc/resolv.conf is documented (although not
>     in the most obvious location), and the package provides an
>     (undocumented) way of working around it.  The documentation could be
>     improved, but replacing /etc/resolv.conf is a common problem with DHCP
>     clients and doesn't warrant removing the package.

I agree that this is not RC.  Whether it's serious is perhaps debatable;
but given that this is a general, pre-existing problem, if you feel that
downgrading it is not appropriate, feel free to tag it sarge-ignore.

> #239326  freewrl
>     There is a packaging problem here, in that what is installed as the
>     freewrl binary isn't the actual binary.  However, there are deeper
>     problems than that, as the binary segfaults immediately if built out
>     of the source tree and then run.  gdb wasn't helpful (to me at least).

Does this bug affect the version of the package in sarge?  (The bug is
tagged "sid", and the version of the package in sid isn't progressing to
sarge any time soon.)

> In trying to (unsuccessfully) get more information about the RC bug in
> goats, I discovered that it calls scrollkeeper from its postinst but
> doesn't depend on it, nor does it pick up scrollkeeper from its other
> dependencies (this resulted in a failure to install on my system until I
> installed scrollkeeper manually).  I filed a new Serious bug on this and
> included a patch.

I can't reproduce the first bug (tagged & downgraded), and the second is
a bit too fresh to warrant a downgrade yet.

Thanks for pitching in!  Even if you don't know for sure what to do with
a particular bug, having more information in the BTS is sure to help
those who come after.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: