Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > > Peter Jay Salzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... > > > "recovering" was no big deal. like you pointed out, it saved a copy of > > > the old file. but that's like congratulating someone for taking a shit > > > in toilet. you'd *expect* it to go into the toilet. if a copy weren't > > > saved, then that would be an excellent reason to switch to another > > > distribution. immediately. > > > > A more rational person would just file a bug. That's what the BTS is > > for. > > How do you expect the maintainer to find the bug given the > description: "three people (so far) complained on d-u that > dexconf overwrote their XF86Config-4 files". > > The bug cannot be easily reproduced -- you have to catch it > right away and then try to figure out which package update > triggered it, downgrade that package, upgrade again, see if > XFConfig got fscked, lather, rinse repeat. > > The bug affects only a tiny minority of users: I've seen three > reports on d-u counting mine so far. > > Since you won't know your XF86Config-4 got fscked until you > restart X, it may be weeks before you notice the problem. By > then you have no idea what packages were being upgraded when > the bug bit, and to what versions. So you can't even say > "yesterday's xserver-* upgarde killed my XF86Config-4", all > you can report is "at some point in time my XF86Config-4 got > fsked". > > What would *you* do with a bug report like that?
What, like this one? http://bugs.debian.org/123350 -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
