Heh, this is the perfect example of a "crap out" bug report =)

Inaccurate and vauge. I believe I know what you're talking about but just because I happen to catch this a while ago (and didn't have a moment at the time to look further into it). It doesn't "crap out completely with error messages" It merely notifies you that some perl files already exists and you can then force the install. This is not worthy of a "high" priorty tag.

I'll take a look at the perl stuff that's duped in irssi later.

.. and to add to an already perfectly 'crapped out' bugreport, s/he unchecked the "Notify author" checkbox which, I think, is rude. His/Her way of saying "this is borken, fix it, i can't waste my time to help but I expect it fixed, biatch!"

Dorphell, do go give me a break.

I can't give you more detail because since when I had the problem I have already forced the packages to install, so I can't give you exact error messages. And yes, it is was about "perl files already existing", however that was enough to STOP the sysupgrade from happening.

I should _not have_ to force an upgrade you see.

I was just a little disappointed at the effort you put into that bug report which you thought as a "high priority bug". When I see a HIGH, I treat it with a sense of urgency and I expect the same from the person who opens the bug, however I often get the impression that people try to write as little as possible just to get the pkg some attention.

I suppose I was a little more harsh than I should have been. Quite a few people have reported bugs as "High" or even "Critical" where the issues were missing dependencies or something so small that it barley breaks the package. So you were the victim of my bottled-up frustration, finally outbursting.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, so as long as you can understand where I'm coming from, we can get on and resolve this bug.

These install fine as of Jun 21 2004. This bug is squashed.

and hopefully so is Eugenia =]