houghi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
I'm talking about 176301. It was never public. Let's leave that one as reported against SLES - that way it will get highest priority ;-). If anybody likes to be CC'ed on it, tell me offline and I add you to it. > 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. Bug 177758 was connected to 176301 as "bug 177758 must be first fixed before we can close 176301". > All is giuessing, because we are not allowed to see #176301 even though it > was first a public one. It never was. > So the conclusion of Frank-Michael is correct: It must be a libzypp issue. Those are totally unrelated - but since 176301 is not public, you can just speculate ;-) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
pgpyNzvuHAQjy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
