* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:12:56 +0200]: > * Steve Langasek [Sun, 05 Feb 2006 04:16:08 -0800]:
> > found 340395 2.1.0-1 > > thanks > > This bug is apparently back in the latest version of the package. > Yet http://bugs.debian.org/src:amule does not show it as unresolved. > Steve, do you know what can have wrong here, or shall I contact [EMAIL > PROTECTED] Okay, I got this cleared up with Don: 23:46 <dato> hey 23:46 <dondelelcaro> sup 23:47 <dato> could you give me some insight as for why #340395 would not appear as unresolved in http://bugs.debian.org/amule-utils? 23:47 <dato> (found 2.0.3-3, fixed 2.0.3-4, found 2.1.0-1) 23:49 <dondelelcaro> hrm... it probably needs to be marked as found in 2.1.1 since there's nothing from 2.1.0 in the archive. However, it's arguable that it should still be shown as unresolved 23:50 <dato> you mean, nothing from 2.1.0 _currently_ in the archive, right? 23:50 <dondelelcaro> right 23:51 <dondelelcaro> even though it was there at the time that it was marked found in 2.1.0 23:51 <dato> okay, got it. do you want to do anything else (e.g. submit a bug), or this suffices? 23:51 <dondelelcaro> I've got to go through all of that code again and see exactly what is going on there. 23:51 <dondelelcaro> nah, that's fine. I really need to step through that whole issue 23:52 <dato> ok. thx for the quick answer. :) 23:52 <dondelelcaro> np 23:52 <dato> (I'll quote you in the bug if that is allright, yes?) 23:52 <dondelelcaro> sure 23:52 <dato> ok > I had noticed the extra dependency yesterday and was planning on fixing > anyway, but glad I noticed that I get an Closes: in the changelog. ;-) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: María del Monte - Rosita Sotomayor
