Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Hans-Werner Hilse <hilse@×××.de>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:26:02
Message-Id: 20070607152005.ad86cabb.hilse@web.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid by Enrico Weigelt
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