On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:38:56PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Frank-Michael Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The reason why I am assuming it's libzypp's fault is: when I filed the > > bug it was for the Zen component, then Nat Budin changed the component > > to libzypp and connected this bug with bug 176301. This bug I am not > > supposed to view. So it's fair to guess there is something rotten in > > the state of libzypp. And we should not participate, just sit and wait. > > Why is everybody thinking there's something rotten going on if a bug > is closed?
I believe you misread it. The bug was moved. Because it was originaly was reported as a lybzypp bug, the one where it is moved to will also be a libzypp bug. This most likely means that there is an issue with libzypp, because otherwise the bug would have been closed and not noted as a duplicate. All is giuessing, because we are not allowed to see #176301 even though it was first a public one. So the conclusion of Frank-Michael is correct: It must be a libzypp issue. -- houghi http://houghi.org http://www.plainfaqs.org/linux/ http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html > > Today I went outside. My pupils have never been tinier... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
