| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:03:52 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de> |
| 4 |
wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > Well, since your awesome efforts last time, everyone here already |
| 7 |
> > knows you're the most polite bug reporter, absolutely fair and |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm really tired of your boring personal attacks. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In fact, it was the first one. I never replied to any of your harsh, |
| 12 |
unfriendly postings before. I really regret I did this time (not |
| 13 |
because I didn't mean it the way I've put it). And BTW: I *did* reply to |
| 14 |
nice and civilized postings of yours in the past. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > Your solution to that bug was charming and short: Dump what you |
| 17 |
> > didn't see making sense |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> In fact: yes. It doesn't make sense to me that startup is refused |
| 20 |
> if the files do not seem to be owned by the current user. Eons |
| 21 |
> ago it had been okay, but today (with ACLs) this is really no |
| 22 |
> reliable source on permissions. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This certainly is a matter for discussion. And to go further, even the |
| 25 |
references to earlier bugs in that section don't seem to have to do |
| 26 |
with the problem. I think you're absolutely right in that there |
| 27 |
shouldn't be a check at all, because it would be not really gentoo-like |
| 28 |
to react over-jealous to users who want to shoot themselves in their |
| 29 |
knees. So, yes, my feeling is the same: It's a stupid check. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
However: That wasn't the point you made in your posting and neither in |
| 32 |
the bug report. You stated instead that it breaks on symlinks and that |
| 33 |
this specifically is the problem. Your "fix" was too general for what |
| 34 |
it stated to fix. It removed the functionality that it claimed to fix. |
| 35 |
Without explanation and reasoning, I'm really happy that such bugs are |
| 36 |
not blindly accepted, i.e. at least regarding the fix. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> > (is that what you said about things being "invalid" ?) |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> NO. The bug, so the whole issue (not my patch), was declared invalid. |
| 41 |
> This means nothing else that "there is no problem". |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
And you really read the according notice, right? That you should reopen |
| 44 |
it if it isn't fixed for you, yes? Well, I've definately seen some more |
| 45 |
harsh bug closures. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> Why wasn't you solution just said in the bug, as response of mine ? |
| 48 |
> Then I just would have tried it and we had seen if worked. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I better leave the reasoning w/ Jakub to you. I think that's a nice |
| 51 |
exercise in working out some personal problems with him expressed in |
| 52 |
your answers to that bug report. I really didn't feel like putting my |
| 53 |
ideas below *that* kind of text. In fact, I would be more likely opening |
| 54 |
a new bug, if it ever bites me. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-hwh |
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives