On Sat, 2014 Jun 21 09:30+0200, intrigeri wrote: > > Two process notes: > > 1. The problem you've raised on this bug since message #98 is a > different issue than #747252, that was rightfully closed as its > practical consequences were resolved already.
Was the point of this exercise to provide as minimal a fix as possible, or to improve the quality of Debian as a whole? I don't see why abstractions/lightdm_chromium-browser would have been left in by the fix unless the former was the goal. > 2. To resolve the new potential issue you're raising, Yves-Alexis is > asking for a "working patch against the current package". I believe we decided that patching the abstraction [so that it parses without error] was not the way to go, since it's part of the lightdm guest- session stuff, which is not used in Debian anyway. What I'm asking is just to remove the file, which is a trivial change to debian/rules. > It seems that you're the best placed person to provide such a > patch, given your apparently strong interest in this topic :) I'm not all that interested in this issue, actually. I just want a clean fix, and don't understand why you're arguing the point. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
