On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 04:31:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of
> > > August for the removal of the package unless there's significant
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of
> > August for the removal of the package unless there's significant
> > progress to fixing the issue.
>
> I still feel this is an overre
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 04:31:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of
> > August for the removal of the package unless there's significant
> > progress to fixing the issue.
>
> I still f
On Saturday 07 August 2010, Neil McGovern wrote:
> As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of
> August for the removal of the package unless there's significant
> progress to fixing the issue.
I still feel this is an overreaction as only the original reporter has ever
see
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Can we PLEASE rename this from "rescue" image to "safe mode" image, and
> document in its boot screen that it should NEVER be used in a system with
> filesystem or RAID problems?
Well, my whole reply came out with a lot more annoyed tone th
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Well, it seems that other people haven't taken an interest in the bug,
> and we've now frozen, again.
Yes. And the justifications in the bug report for not fixing the underlying
issues go like this: we should take actions which are guaranteed to destro
Well, it seems that other people haven't taken an interest in the bug,
and we've now frozen, again.
As there isn't a resolution in sight, I'll add a hint at the end of
August for the removal of the package unless there's significant
progress to fixing the issue.
Neil
--
the hacklab room is the
On Wednesday 24 March 2010, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:51:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > This package should not be removed. The bug is partly theoretical and
> > only affects a minority of use cases.
>
> ok, so you think it should be squeeze-ignore? do you think it should
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:51:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> This package should not be removed. The bug is partly theoretical and only
> affects a minority of use cases.
ok, so you think it should be squeeze-ignore? do you think it should be
ignored for any release in the future? or downgraded?
On Wednesday 24 March 2010, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> unless you object soon, i will suggest the removal of these packages
> from testing. the rationale is (a mixture of these will apply to the
> package in question)
This package should not be removed. The bug is partly theoretical and only
affects
10 matches
Mail list logo
