On 2011-10-16 21:15:15 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > tags 216768 = wontfix > quit > > Hi David, > > David Kalnischkies wrote: > > > This approach makes mistakes for granted and isn't optimal in all cases, > > but given that the consequences can be a lot worser if a essential is > > missing than they can be if a transition package is still installed > > (which is more or less the only time people really see/complain about it) > > i don't really see why it should be changed. And so far nobody else > > could provide a good reason… so i don't change what isn't broken. ;) > > Thanks for this nice explanation! I'm marking the bug as "wontfix" so > the explanation can be better known (and to get the bug off my radar). > > Maybe some day someone will put just the right words in some manpage to > even allow the bug to be closed. ;-)
I disagree about the wontfix. You need to look at all the other merged bugs, in particular bug 282278, which is about a confusing warning message. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
