Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> (2015-03-08): > On Sonntag, 8. März 2015, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > I'm not sure what your “AFAICS” covers. > > literally: "as far as I can see"...
Based on what? > > I've already explained this code has been here for 10 years. People > > have already complained about this against wheezy. > > the impact is less severe on wheezy, again AFAIK. Based on what? > > Can we please try not to sweep it under the rug, and instead try to > > reproduce + fix it?! > > Making it not ring unneeded alarms is not sweeping it under the rug. > That said, I'll leave the bug alone now. Who said they are unneeded? That's what I asked in my first reply. You didn't mention anything. And now you're tagging that bug report again, without any further explanations. Letting that bug report in a proper state means we have a chance that someone who cares actually investigates the wheezy situation instead of wild guessing. That means possibly landing a fix in wheezy. That's been my plan from the start, I'd appreciate not having to fight to keep the bug report in a suitable state… KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
