[ removed useless -devel cc ] On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:33:31PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > I concur. > > But, still, clearly, one cannot ask for info, more input from the user, while > at the same time disregard 99% of the info already provided. > > Well, I hope that you are right and that is a /misunderstanding/. But I feel > these last year that this kind of /misunderstanding/ happen often on the > Debian BTS. Here we are talking about linux and SATA support, not really a > secondary issue of an obscure piece of software. That's why I raised the > issue at debian-devel, I would be glad if it serves as a reminder to Debian > developers that even if users obviously owe something to them, handling > honestly reports is part of the deal. > If each time one a user of debian testing get to his documented bug reports > as > only answer to use another version of the software (meaning switching to > unstable, which he may not want to/be able to), that won't do. > > Well, end of the story for me. Thanks Luk for your attention.
any unstable kernel installs just fine on testing. woow instead of loosing blabla time a simple upgrade could have been done long ago. i told you the reality 2.6.21 is _not_ supported. it is also certainly not the version with which Lenny or any d-i will be released. so your report is missing vital info. best regards -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
