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

[Daniel Leidert]

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?!

> 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.

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.

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!

> 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!

Daniel