Svante Signell a écrit : > Dear Aurelien, > > I am sorry if I offended you in any way by upgrading the bug severity, > but according to your replies you were only downgrading the importance > of the bug report, and saying that the lm80 is a very rare sensor > indicating the non-importance of the bug report, since lm-sensors works > for a lot of other sensors except lm80.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my answer, but this was not my goal. The point of downgrading the bug immediately was to not block the transition of the package to testing, which is needed for other reasons. > This kind of reply is not convincing for me, especially when there is a > bug associated with version 3 of lm-sensors, not existing in version > 2.10. I still don't know what you mean by "to fix the configuration > converter", see below. Maybe this is not your fault, but mainstreams, During an upgrade /etc/sensors3.conf is created from /etc/sensors.conf using sensors-conf-convert, that's why fixing the default sensors.conf won't help. > but maybe a bug report reply could be entitled to some informative > feedback, instead of the usual importance downgrading with a > short/non-constructive reply! > > Lets work together to improve the quality of the Debian packages, > including the bug fixes, and upstream reporting. I have reported the bug upstream the day you reported the bug, and a fix has been published later. However, they don't plan to fix the sensors-conf-convert script, as this package is "very rare". So I have to fix it myself. That job is on my TODO list, but anyway we have to wait a few days so that the package moves into testing before I can upload the new version. Aurelien -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
