Re: this debconf stuff is crazy!
Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@yola.bmrb.wisc.edu> writes:
> * 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?
What, like this one?
http://bugs.debian.org/123350
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
Reply to: