FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-03-2012, 12:59 PM
Chris Bannister
 
Default xsesssion-errors

On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:07:09PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > Camaleón wrote:
> > >> But it seems the problem remains (read comment #45) so dunno why it was
> > >> archived with apparently no additional clues on the current status:
> > >
> > > This was the message that closed it. It was sent to 617940-done and so
> > > the bug was marked as closed. The other bug was forcibly merged with
> > > this one and so it was closed too.
> > >
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=617940#26
> >
> > Yes, but regardless the bug status (closed or archived) the issue
> > persists as reported later:
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=33;bug=617940
> >
> > Or is that I am wrongly reading the "notfixed 617940 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2" tag?
>
> What I see by looking now is:
>
> * 617940 is/was assigned to the libvdpau1 package
> * notfixed 617940 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 removes any indication that
> version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was fixed.
> * libvdpau1 never had any version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 in the
> archive according to http://packages.qa.debian.org/libv/libvdpau.html
> and therefore marking it as not fixed does not mark any existing
> version as buggy. The version number is just completely bogus.
>
> I think 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was meant to apply to mplayer not
> libvdpau1 and therefore the intended bug maintenance actions did not
> occur as intended. The bug remained closed and was archived according
> to the standard schedule for closed bugs.
>
> Bob

So what now?



--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120903125904.GR25171@tal
 
Old 09-03-2012, 01:29 PM
Chris Bannister
 
Default xsesssion-errors

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:59:04AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > What I see by looking now is:
> >
> > * 617940 is/was assigned to the libvdpau1 package
> > * notfixed 617940 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 removes any indication that
> > version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was fixed.
> > * libvdpau1 never had any version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 in the
> > archive according to http://packages.qa.debian.org/libv/libvdpau.html
> > and therefore marking it as not fixed does not mark any existing
> > version as buggy. The version number is just completely bogus.
> >
> > I think 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was meant to apply to mplayer not
> > libvdpau1 and therefore the intended bug maintenance actions did not
> > occur as intended. The bug remained closed and was archived according
> > to the standard schedule for closed bugs.
> >
> > Bob
>
> So what now?

Ahh!, so I thought:

The following message to <617940-open@bugs.debian.org> was
undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'Unknown or archived bug'




--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120903132940.GA27546@tal
 
Old 09-03-2012, 01:31 PM
Chris Bannister
 
Default xsesssion-errors

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:43:11AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> At least there is a bug open: see chameleon's post in this thread.

Correction was open, now closed and archived.

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120903133152.GB27546@tal
 
Old 09-03-2012, 02:09 PM
Camaleón
 
Default xsesssion-errors

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:59:04 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:07:09PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:

(...)

>> > > This was the message that closed it. It was sent to 617940-done and
>> > > so the bug was marked as closed. The other bug was forcibly merged
>> > > with this one and so it was closed too.
>> > >
>> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=617940#26
>> >
>> > Yes, but regardless the bug status (closed or archived) the issue
>> > persists as reported later:
>> >
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=33;bug=617940
>> >
>> > Or is that I am wrongly reading the "notfixed 617940
>> > 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2" tag?
>>
>> What I see by looking now is:
>>
>> * 617940 is/was assigned to the libvdpau1 package * notfixed 617940
>> 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 removes any indication that
>> version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was fixed.
>> * libvdpau1 never had any version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 in the
>> archive according to
>> http://packages.qa.debian.org/libv/libvdpau.html and therefore
>> marking it as not fixed does not mark any existing version as
>> buggy. The version number is just completely bogus.
>>
>> I think 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was meant to apply to mplayer not
>> libvdpau1 and therefore the intended bug maintenance actions did not
>> occur as intended. The bug remained closed and was archived according
>> to the standard schedule for closed bugs.

Oh, now you talk like the marketing people ("standard schedule") which
sounds very nice but provides little to void content for us... you know
>:-)

Now, with my user's hat on, there's only a "standard schedule" which
means fixing a problem or closing a bug report with a valid reason (you
can choose between: not a bug/not reproducible/forwarded upstream/closed
because I have a bad day, etc...)

> So what now?

Exactly. I think the "alter-ego" bug was archived just because no one
replied (I mean, "insisted" on the problem) and was silently forgotten.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k22dmp$vnl$6@ger.gmane.org
 
Old 09-03-2012, 03:25 PM
Jon Dowland
 
Default xsesssion-errors

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:59:04AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> So what now?

If the bug needs re-opening, unarchive it and reopen it:
<http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control>

Probably something like this to control@bugs.debian.org

unarchive 617940
reopen 617940
thanks

It would be worth appending any additional information/testing to the
bug, once opened, to aid the maintainer.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120903152554.GD6809@debian
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:19 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org