On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:38:40PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:06:17AM -0800, Matt Kraai wrote: > > I object. We should fix, rather than disable, it. Could you > > please try the following code instead? > Sorry, I won't have access to the s390 systems until Monday so I > can't do this now. I have uploaded the NMU for i386 and s390 to > incoming - if you or anybody else objects, just remove the files > there.
Uh. You didn't file bugs for the things you fixed, nor did you send a patch to the BTS. That is incredibly poor form. > debootstrap 0.1.15.x did not contain the initctl patch and worked > fine It worked fine on some architectures, and not others. > It already took me several hours to find the problem so I'm not very > interested in spending even more time trying different variants of > this hack. If this is your attitude to the package, then you shouldn't be NMUing the package. Either get it right, or don't do it at all. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. The daffodils are coming. Are you? linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia --- http://linux.conf.au/
msg15100/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
