On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:10:06PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Now, it fails on "some env",
Not "some env". It fails in BOTH reproducible builds and my autobuilders. Those are INDEPENDENT. There is OBJECTIVELY a problem behind this. >but you can't provide an explanation on > what going on, It is not a job of a bug reporter to provide an explanation. I'm providing a virtual machine for you to test, and you still refuse the offer. I could understand your unwillingness to work on something which you don't see as RC, but that's not a good reason to *close* a report. > I don't know what I can do, You could still accept the offer to access one of my autobuilders. You can also forward the bug upstream and tag it as "help". > If you understand what's going on, good, I'll accept a patch. Otherwise, > if there's nothing I can do, why leaving this bug open? Because it's a bug. This is a matter of principles. We don't close bugs just because we are not motivated enough to fix them, we close them when they are fixed. > Why should I > spend more time on this, I'm not actually asking you to do anything, since you already downgraded the bug and I'm not disputing the severity. > rather than adding more features and doing more > useful Q/A, or let's say, work more on the Python 2 removal in Bullseye? > I spent already a lot of time on this... Let's clarify one thing: Are you closing this report because you believe it is not a bug, or just because you are unwilling to work on it? In the first case, we should reassign to the tech-ctte, since I clearly disagree. In the second case it is absolutely not proper to close a bug if we agree it's a bug. Thanks.
