On 2012-12-09 20:29:53 +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Are #614963/#694635 duplicates of #399904?
Not necessarily. I would be in favor of letting #614963/#694635 assigned to gnupg (with the blocking/affecting relation) for better visibility. Also note that when a bug in some library affects some executable like here, there is sometimes the possibility to change the code in the executable in order to avoid the bug, so that this can also be seen as a bug in the executable (i.e. using a library feature that is known to be broken). I don't know what the developers are planning to do here... It seems that the glibc bug affects only gnupg, so that it may not be fixed before a long time. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
