From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Oct 22 21:17:26 1996 Return-Path: owner-bugs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA02294 for bugs-outgoing; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freenet.hamilton.on.ca (main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA02272; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.66]) by freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA24716; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA07958; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:18:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca: ac199 owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:18:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek Reply-To: Tim Vanderhoek To: phk@freefall.freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: misc/1757 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bugs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [Cc:'d to jkh, since if it has been fixed, he should know] Once, Poul-Henning Kamp uttered the words, > > Synopsis: sysinstall repeatably generates a sig11 > > State-Changed-From-To: open-closed > State-Changed-By: phk > State-Changed-When: Tue Oct 22 09:59:04 PDT 1996 > State-Changed-Why: > Jordan has nailed this one I presume. You presumed wrongly, I believe. I don't follow -commit, but comparing -current sysinstall to the one I found this bug with revealed no differences likely to fix the problem. Moreover, the only changes after the 14th of October were to the help/ directory. Using the 2.2-961014-SNAP release, I verified that the bug still exists, as reported. (I will admit that one of the steps-to-repeat has changed marginally, but it's very intuitive to figure out what to do). I suppose you probably thought the bug had been fixed since J'oerg (or was it J Wunsch? apologies to the one it wasn't...) incorrectly replied to the bugreport that it had been fixed. Jordan replied to the reply that this particular bug had not been fixed, but Jordan's reply wasn't saved by the gnats program. I was going to use the previous paragraph to suggest that it would've been helpful to search the -bugs list for any other comments on misc/1757 until I noticed that none of the comments (or in fact the original bugreport) had managed to get archived yet.... Why must it take _so_ long for messages to become properly archived and searchable? For the mailing-list archives, I would consider speedy archival to be a Good Thing (tm). -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk