Comment 64 for bug 11517

(In reply to comment #63)
> Actually, for me eject -s never worked. What worked was running eject more than
> once. If I used eject -s I still had to run it twice.

That's a different issue altogether.

> As for there being a workaround, you're thinking from an elite user's
> perspective. eject -s isn't going to help my sister-in-law. It's not a huge
> patch, right? Why not let the patch through to breezy? What release rule does
> "fixing user-visible bugs" violate? Breezy was, in several ways, a somewhat
> embarassing release. Why not fix the embarassing bugs so that people can feel
> confident encouraging others to use it?

This bug has been around always. It's not like it just popped up in breezy.
Since it is not a regression, it's not considered that important. Rebuilding 12
kernels on 3 architectures and forcing everyone (even the majority not affected
by this bug) to update a 20meg .deb is not considered feasible, nor ideal.

I'm not saying I like this, but that's the way it is right now. After dapper is
released, it is my intention to make things easier for upgrades to get to users
post-release.