Thanks Don.
Don Armstrong a écrit :
Playing BTS ping-pong by use of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not acceptable.
Continuing to do so will result in being excluded from using the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] interface.
If you believe that a maintainer has closed a bug in error, reopening
it once is acceptable with an explanation of why you believe the bug
should be reopened. Reopening it multiple times is not. It's also the
purview of the maintainer to set tags, such as wontfix; of course
ideally they would provide rationale when the reasons for doing so are
not obvious.
If there's a still a problem, and you are unable to convince the
maintainer by polite discussion, then you can bring discussion to
-devel (or possibly the tech-ctte), and they can help you understand
(or override) the maintainer's decision.
When a maintainer closes a bug report, it's also courteous for them to
provide a little bit of rationale as to why the bug is being closed,
even if the submitter has submitted a bug in error. [It helps everyone
else who is reading the report later understand what happen, and
hopefully keeps them from reopening the bug or resubmitting similar
ones.]
As a final note, nothing stops you from discussing the fate of a
closed bug up and until it is archived (which is currently disabled,
anyway.)
This was attempted without success.
Laurence J. Lane a écrit :
The iptables package did not set the package priorty.
Laurence, thank you for your explanation.
I opened a new bug report against ftp.d.o, which was closed. I do not
intend to open it anymore. For the record, in case someone would have
again the funny idea of opening a bug report about this against
iptables, that bug report is #389674.
