Henning Makholm wrote: > I think this counts as abuse of the wontfix tag. Setting the tag is > *never* a substitute for explaining (or referencing an explanation of) > why one thinks the problem should not be solved.
I encountered this bug now, and asked myself - what should one do? Obviously the maintainer, or someone else involved, could do a better job handling bug reports. The thought of removing all unexplained wontfix tags struck me, but BTS ping pong is hardly never the right thing to do... I found a segmentation fault, but I won't bother reporting it - since I feel it'll probably only result in a wontfix tagging solution. In my attempts to google for cdebootstrap, the only useful I found was this quote from the following page: http://vds.pas-mal.com/irclogs/vserver-log.20050111.txt " [00:38] <Pazzo> what are the benefits of cdebootstrap over debootstrap? [00:38] <Seraph> cdebootstrap is coded in C and about powers of ten faster [00:38] <Seraph> plus it's the new and maintained replacement [00:39] <Seraph> whereas debootstrap is rather "only updated where needed" afaik " That doesn't give me much to go on if I would want to write a better description for the package myself. -- /Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
