Re: this debconf stuff is crazy!
* Brian Nelson (nelson@bignachos.com) spake thusly:
> Peter Jay Salzman <p@dirac.org> writes:
...
> > "recovering" was no big deal. like you pointed out, it saved a copy of
> > the old file. but that's like congratulating someone for taking a shit
> > in toilet. you'd *expect* it to go into the toilet. if a copy weren't
> > saved, then that would be an excellent reason to switch to another
> > distribution. immediately.
>
> A more rational person would just file a bug. That's what the BTS is
> for.
How do you expect the maintainer to find the bug given the
description: "three people (so far) complained on d-u that
dexconf overwrote their XF86Config-4 files".
The bug cannot be easily reproduced -- you have to catch it
right away and then try to figure out which package update
triggered it, downgrade that package, upgrade again, see if
XFConfig got fscked, lather, rinse repeat.
The bug affects only a tiny minority of users: I've seen three
reports on d-u counting mine so far.
Since you won't know your XF86Config-4 got fscked until you
restart X, it may be weeks before you notice the problem. By
then you have no idea what packages were being upgraded when
the bug bit, and to what versions. So you can't even say
"yesterday's xserver-* upgarde killed my XF86Config-4", all
you can report is "at some point in time my XF86Config-4 got
fsked".
What would *you* do with a bug report like that?
Dima
--
One distinguishing characteristic of BOFHen is attention deficit disorder.
Put me in front of something boring and I can find a near-infinite number
of really creative ways to bugger off. -- ADB
Reply to: