Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > Hi Luk, Luciano, > [As #356963 is closed, I follow up on #340799] > > On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 11:53 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > >>No need as I just uploaded a fixed version. > > I just wonder why it has urgency=high? IMHO it's for security fixes, > etc. It does not help with the neon transition, as neon waits on > subversion, openoffice.org and maybe rapidsvn anyway, davfs2 is just an > other package in the line. Also I may upload a new neon package version > for #336491 if I can find out that krb5 or heimdal to choose.
Maybe it should have been urgency=low as it is a new upstream version, though normally a simple RC bug fix warrants an urgency=high... If there are no particular technical reasons to choose between the two, I would go for krb5 as it is used by far more people and is actively maintained (no RC bugs open or recent NMUs). >>>+ * New upstream version: >>>+ - fixes pidfile directory creation (closes: #348796); >>>+ - fixes iis[56] misbehave (closes: #340799). >> >>This was supposed to be fixed in 2.0.7-1, though the bug submitter still >>had problems with IIS interaction (see BTS). Did you confirm that >>upstream's 2.0.8 does fix this bug? > > I have read #340799 , Martin wrote that he still has problems with > 0.2.7-1, Werner Baumann followed that > "It showed to be a bug not in davfs2, but in the server (not IIS but a > custom WebDAV module). So I think the interoperability issues with IIS > are resolved by davfs2 0.2.7-1." This only confirms that the bug is not solved for Martin... > So it seems it can be closed (OK, not from the changelog, but > bts-done@ ). Upstream BTS, SF.net #676475 shows status closed and > resolution fixed. More important is that Martin wrote there that: > "But apart from that - there's not much you can do working around broken > implementations. The server does not give a timeout value, and trying to > guess it would not have any advantages over mounting with the 'nolocks' > option. Which we know already works." This looks more promising... > Thus some note in the README for davfs2 would be enough, as the bug is > not in davfs2, upstream does not handle it and it seems it can be solved > with the 'nolocks' mount option. I can not test it myself, but as Martin > wrote this, who is the original bug submitter, IMHO we can believe him. > What's your opinion Luk? Though before it's documented I wouldn't close this bug... Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
