tags 303844 +upstream tags 303844 +wontfix tags 303844 +patch On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:24:57AM -0700, David Liontooth wrote: > Horms wrote: > > >On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 12:36:57AM -0700, David Liontooth wrote: > > > > > >>Jacques Goldberg writes the patch submitted with this bugreport is a > >>poor solution to the problem and should not be used. > >>I request the bugreport be closed; a solution is in the works in the > >>mainline kernel. > >> > >> > > > >Perhaps it would be best to just mark the bug as upstream for now. > >Though personally, I think closing bugs is a damn good idea > >if they are being handled elsewhere. > > > > > > > The patch solves a problem that is hopefully short-term, so > the bugreport serves its purpose if it remains available to > people who have the same problem, until a real fix is put in > place. I don't know the detailed mechanics of bug report > management, but some action that makes the report still > visible, but signals that no action is needed, would seem > appropriate.
I agree there is some value in having the bug visible to others. As you suggest, I have added some additional tags to the bug, which I think better reflect its state. That is, its a bug with the upstream code, the debian kernel team does not intend to fix it, but there is a interim patch available (in the bug report). -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
