From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hw3pS-0007e4-87 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:18:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l56MGBSK015002; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:16:11 GMT Received: from s15216962.onlinehome-server.info (s15216962.onlinehome-server.info [217.160.22.205]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l56M4WUY028380 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:04:37 GMT Received: (from uucp@localhost) by s15216962.onlinehome-server.info (8.13.3/8.13.3/SuSE Linux 0.7) with UUCP id l56M53xP018045 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:05:03 +0200 Received: (from weigelt@localhost) by nibiru.metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id l56M3qEr009734 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:03:52 +0200 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:03:52 +0200 From: Enrico Weigelt To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Again: Critical bugs considered invalid Message-ID: <20070606220352.GB2575@nibiru.local> References: <20070605150742.GB7993@nibiru.local> <20070605174817.7411ba70.hilse@web.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070605174817.7411ba70.hilse@web.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Terror: bin laden, kill bush, Briefbombe, Massenvernichtung, KZ, X-Nazi: Weisse Rasse, Hitlers Wiederauferstehung, 42, X-Antichrist: weg mit schaeuble, ausrotten, heiliger krieg, al quaida, X-Killer: 23, endloesung, Weltuntergang, X-Doof: wer das liest ist doof X-Archives-Salt: 043fb7a1-263d-4199-a7e4-c8bd350cee6b X-Archives-Hash: 3a940bdd5ee6c183535699b63a32f518 * Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: > Well, since your awesome efforts last time, everyone here already > knows you're the most polite bug reporter, absolutely fair and I'm really tired of your boring personal attacks. Can't you come up with some more interesting ? Maybe a polar weather report or an fallen over rice bag ? ... > Your solution to that bug was charming and short: Dump what you > didn't see making sense In fact: yes. It doesn't make sense to me that startup is refused if the files do not seem to be owned by the current user. Eons ago it had been okay, but today (with ACLs) this is really no reliable source on permissions. > (is that what you said about things being "invalid" ?) NO. The bug, so the whole issue (not my patch), was declared invalid. This means nothing else that "there is no problem". > -- instead of complicated solutions like e.g. using readlink(1) > and keeping at least the functionality in there. At the point where my bug was declared invalid, there was no more motivation for me to think about that. Why wasn't you solution just said in the bug, as response of mine ? Then I just would have tried it and we had seen if worked. But obviously there's not cooperation wanted w/ me. Neither my fault nor my problem. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list