Comment 13 for bug 362315

On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 14:09 +0000, Julien Plissonneau Duquene wrote:

> And this is how a sensible bug supervisor (like most supervisors
> actually are) would have done it:
>
I'm not a bug supervisor. I'm a developer.

> - ask for details (mark bug "new", "incomplete" or "triaged") ; are
> there actually two signatures on the partition? how did that happen?
>
No need, your bug report contained all the details required - it was
clear that there were two signatures on the block device and that it was
ignored for precisely this reason.

> - add "cryptsetup" to the bug so they can think about erasing some
> known signatures (esp. swap) when initalizing a LUKS partition
>
Err, I did this.

> - mark the bug as "confirmed" because not reporting any UUID in this
> case is just nonsense.
>
Didn't need to be Confirmed - it can go straight to Invalid/Won't Fix

> - eventually report the problem upstream (or ask the reporter do do
> so), and wait for upstream reaction before taking a decision
> (implement upstream fix, won't fix, patch in distro).
>
I know the upstream opinion on this kind of bug very well, we are in
constant communication.

I'm also actively involved in the current effort to merge vol_id and
libblkid, so I know the upstream opinions of util-linux-ng as well in
this matter.

Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
<email address hidden>