-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:31:44 +0530 > Von: Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > An: Michael Burschik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: debian-qa@lists.debian.org > Betreff: Re: Should I report a failure to boot?
> Hello, > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Michael Burschik wrote: > > I am willing to concede that it is not a kernel bug. However, I > > maintain that it is inappropriate for the owner of the kernel > > package to dismiss the bug report. If Debian wants to receive bug > > reports, the maintainers need to become more cooperative. > > The way persons react may depend on their mood. I have just eaten a > good lunch and I am at peace with myself :-) Yes, yes, we are all fallible. I am not claiming I am more polite than someone else. I am merely pointing out that I am unlikely to submit further bug reports if they are handled like this one was. > > > I would claim that most users are unable to correctly identify the > > source of most problems without active help from maintainers. > > One of the corollaries of this is that an actively used package gets > a larger total number of unreproducible or incorrectly assigned bugs. > This results in more harried and irritable maintainers for those > packages. Even expanding the list of co-maintainers is not enough > for some packages. > > > What am I supposed to try again? File a bug report against the > > kernel? File a bug report against some other component? If so, which > > one? > > Have you already filed a bug report? If so I could look at it if you > give me a reference number. (Even closed bug reports can still be > accessed.) I filed bug report #443197. > If you have not already filed a bug report then you can send your > question[*] to debian-users (please send me a copy as I may have time to > look at it). Others on that list may have suggestions on how to fix > it. That fix could then be implemented in an appropriate package. > A wishlist or higher bug could then be filed against that package > with a patch. I could probably use a different kernel, as the problem never occurred with 2.6.18, 2.6.20 or 2.6.21, and this is probably what I will do. Alternatively, initrd/initramfs could be set up to name the disks consistently. Alternatively, I could use disk labels or UUIDs and modify the grub configuration accordingly. But none of this should be necessary because the installation should already have set up things in a bullet-proof manner. > The (lack of) persistent naming of devices has been a problem for > GNU/Linux for a while and even in these days of udev, dbus, hal and > so on it still hits us once in a while so we have to keep plugging > away at finding a more complete solution. I am really amazed at this insistence on a lack of persistent naming. I have used, installed and supervised the installation of Linux on dozens or even hundreds of machines during the last fifteen and a half years, and this is the first time that I have ever seen a device name change without some change to the hardware. It can't be that common, can it? > > Regards, > > Kapil. > > [*] As usual please try to formulate the bug as clearly as > possible so that others can (try to) reproduce the problem. > -- > Regards Michael Burschik -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
