[xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#482140: Processed: tagging 482140

[Luk Claes]

Daniel Leidert wrote:
> tags 482140 + unreproducible
> thanks
> 
> Am Sonntag, den 05.10.2008, 22:29 +0200 schrieb Luk Claes:
>> Daniel Leidert wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag, den 05.10.2008, 17:36 +0000 schrieb Debian Bug Tracking
>>> System:
>>>> Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org:
>>>>
>>>>> tags 482140 - unreproducible
>>>> Bug#482140: docbook-xml: Package does not install: update-xmlcatalog: error: entity already registered
>>>> Tags were: help unreproducible
>>>> Tags removed: unreproducible
>>> Would you be so kind to explain, why you removed the tag? If you know of
>>> a way to reproduce it, I would really love to hear it, because I cannot
>>> reproduce the problem. If you remove the tag you seem to know a way to
>>> reproduce it.
>> If lots of people complain about the same problem, it is reproducible.
> 
> Oh really? Even those, who observed the issue were *not* able to
> reproduce it! Why do you change bug tags, when you even did not read the
> whole report?!

I did read it.

>> You seem to tag it unreproducible to not have to solve it
> 
> WTF are you trying to say?! I spent several days trying to reproduce it!
> I again repeat it: Even people who observed the issue were not able to
> reproduce it! Downgrading and again upgrading worked perfectly! And
> everything which is now attached to this report is: "Oh yes, I also had
> this." Yeah, this is the information I need.

Which proves that it does not work when downgrading first.

> Two entities are not removed. But the maintainer scripts *remove* them.
> So there must be a reason, why these two entities are not removed and I
> cannot reproduce this behaviour. I think, that the Perl upgrade maybe
> leave the system in a broken state, so the removal command fails. But I
> cannot reproduce it and I tried several upgrade orders! Another
> possibility is, that the package was shipped wih a CD and was broken on
> this CD. But reporters told me, that the maintainer scripts on their
> system were ok. However, re-installing the package also seems to solve
> the problem.

If downgrading does not reproduce it, it certainly looks like the
removal command fails for some reason.

> And now you better shut up and try to reproduce it yourself instead
> trying to teach me about things, I already examined! I gave you a lot of
> information, which all did not help me to reproduce it. If you think, I
> try to *not* solve it: Well show me, how bad I maintain the package!

Well, it's you who doesn't downgrade the severity even if you are sure
most people are not affected and you're not able to reproduce the bug.

>> or find a way
>> to reproduce it which is not the use case of the tag AFAIK.
> 
> I spent hours over hours and the tags meaning is: "This bug can't be
> reproduced on the maintainer's system. Assistance from third parties is
> needed in diagnosing the cause of the problem." This is exactly, what
> I'm looking for!
> 
> Find a way to reproduce it and then I will remove this tag. And now stop
> your insulting behaviour!

It was not meant as insulting at all, it just looked to me that you were
giving the wrong message by not downgrading the bug.

Btw, I downgraded the severity to important.

Cheers

Luk