I know the mailing list shouldn't turn into a bug spammers paradise, but this bug is perhaps a good example of a bug that could be handled a little better: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151238
Tthe short version:
Me: Boot log is empty, I needed that BN: Oh we removed that, we want to do things differently, it will work again in a future version Me: Can't we keep it until the future version is available? BN: No. <silence>
This bug was reported nine releases ago, in fc4test1 :/
Am Freitag, den 25.01.2008, 18:04 +0100 schrieb nodata:
I know the mailing list shouldn't turn into a bug spammers paradise, but this bug is perhaps a good example of a bug that could be handled a little better: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151238
Tthe short version:
Me: Boot log is empty, I needed that BN: Oh we removed that, we want to do things differently, it will work again in a future version Me: Can't we keep it until the future version is available? BN: No. <silence>
This bug was reported nine releases ago, in fc4test1 :/
Nine releases ago? Well..
nodata (lsof@nodata.co.uk) said:
I know the mailing list shouldn't turn into a bug spammers paradise, but this bug is perhaps a good example of a bug that could be handled a little better: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151238
Taking patches; the issue is that the system has changed enough in the interim (between udev, SELinux, etc.) that the old code no longer is a drop-in replacement. Further updates to the bug aren't really useful until work is being done on it.
Bill
Am Freitag, den 25.01.2008, 12:29 -0500 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
nodata (lsof@nodata.co.uk) said:
I know the mailing list shouldn't turn into a bug spammers paradise, but this bug is perhaps a good example of a bug that could be handled a little better: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151238
Taking patches; the issue is that the system has changed enough in the interim (between udev, SELinux, etc.) that the old code no longer is a drop-in replacement.
If it was kept in the distro, then the code would have been incremtally improved and fixed to keep it working.
Further updates to the bug aren't really useful until work is being done on it.
This is a moot point because support for boot.log should never have been dropped until the replacement was ready.
Bill
nodata (lsof@nodata.co.uk) said:
Taking patches; the issue is that the system has changed enough in the interim (between udev, SELinux, etc.) that the old code no longer is a drop-in replacement.
If it was kept in the distro, then the code would have been incremtally improved and fixed to keep it working.
Right, but I don't have a time machine.
Bill
On Fri January 25 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Taking patches; the issue is that the system has changed enough in the interim (between udev, SELinux, etc.) that the old code no longer is a drop-in replacement. Further updates to the bug aren't really useful until work is being done on it.
Please write in the bug report, that you take patches, then everyone knows that writing a patch is worth the trouble.
Regards, Till