Hi, On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:03:52 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, since your awesome efforts last time, everyone here already > > knows you're the most polite bug reporter, absolutely fair and > > I'm really tired of your boring personal attacks. In fact, it was the first one. I never replied to any of your harsh, unfriendly postings before. I really regret I did this time (not because I didn't mean it the way I've put it). And BTW: I *did* reply to nice and civilized postings of yours in the past. > > Your solution to that bug was charming and short: Dump what you > > didn't see making sense > > In fact: yes. It doesn't make sense to me that startup is refused > if the files do not seem to be owned by the current user. Eons > ago it had been okay, but today (with ACLs) this is really no > reliable source on permissions. This certainly is a matter for discussion. And to go further, even the references to earlier bugs in that section don't seem to have to do with the problem. I think you're absolutely right in that there shouldn't be a check at all, because it would be not really gentoo-like to react over-jealous to users who want to shoot themselves in their knees. So, yes, my feeling is the same: It's a stupid check. However: That wasn't the point you made in your posting and neither in the bug report. You stated instead that it breaks on symlinks and that this specifically is the problem. Your "fix" was too general for what it stated to fix. It removed the functionality that it claimed to fix. Without explanation and reasoning, I'm really happy that such bugs are not blindly accepted, i.e. at least regarding the fix. > > (is that what you said about things being "invalid" ?) > > NO. The bug, so the whole issue (not my patch), was declared invalid. > This means nothing else that "there is no problem". And you really read the according notice, right? That you should reopen it if it isn't fixed for you, yes? Well, I've definately seen some more harsh bug closures. > Why wasn't you solution just said in the bug, as response of mine ? > Then I just would have tried it and we had seen if worked. I better leave the reasoning w/ Jakub to you. I think that's a nice exercise in working out some personal problems with him expressed in your answers to that bug report. I really didn't feel like putting my ideas below *that* kind of text. In fact, I would be more likely opening a new bug, if it ever bites me. -hwh -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
