[Holger Levsen] > As I wrote, kreebsd-* is a release architecture. (So it's actually > debatable whether this bug is important or serious...)
I do not get your argument, no. Failing to build or work on kfreebsd might be an important bug, but that would be a bug for lsof, not debian-edu-config, unless you are saying that the set of package depending in something missing on kfreebsd should have a important bug reported against them. Why should this bug not be reassigned to lsof asking for a port of lsof to kfreebsd? (alsa-base tiger tct rkhunter piuparts openafs-client netatalk libpam-mount libexplain9 libexplain9-dbg libexplain-dev explain ltspfsd-core lsat hobbit-plugins debian-goodies debian-edu-config dancer-services ctdb alsa-base) is the list of packages with a relationship with lsof (from 'apt-cache showpkg lsof' in unstable). Should all of these have important bugs reported against them in addition to a bug registered against lsof? So, in short, I believe failing to build on a release architecture deserve a important bug, if it have never built on that architecture before. Depending on a package failing to build on a release architecture do not deserve such bug. > How do those scripts behave if lsof is not available? I suspect they fail, but have not tested. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
