On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 14:09 +0000, Julien Plissonneau Duquene wrote: > And this is how a sensible bug supervisor (like most supervisors > actually are) would have done it: > I'm not a bug supervisor. I'm a developer.
> - ask for details (mark bug "new", "incomplete" or "triaged") ; are > there actually two signatures on the partition? how did that happen? > No need, your bug report contained all the details required - it was clear that there were two signatures on the block device and that it was ignored for precisely this reason. > - add "cryptsetup" to the bug so they can think about erasing some > known signatures (esp. swap) when initalizing a LUKS partition > Err, I did this. > - mark the bug as "confirmed" because not reporting any UUID in this > case is just nonsense. > Didn't need to be Confirmed - it can go straight to Invalid/Won't Fix > - eventually report the problem upstream (or ask the reporter do do > so), and wait for upstream reaction before taking a decision > (implement upstream fix, won't fix, patch in distro). > I know the upstream opinion on this kind of bug very well, we are in constant communication. I'm also actively involved in the current effort to merge vol_id and libblkid, so I know the upstream opinions of util-linux-ng as well in this matter. Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com -- udev fails to identify crypt_LUKS swap partition by uuid https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/362315 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
