On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 07:57:40PM +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote: > I understand your point of view, but this bug is marked as "Fixed in version > procinfo/1:2.0.208-1". This is correct and this remain an RC for Lenny.
Well if it isn't being accepted into Lenny, then that doesn't help and most likely Lenny will end up with no procinfo at all. Wouldn't it be better to make a procinfo 18-3 with the simple fix which is much more likely to be accepted into Lenny and then get the new procinfo-ng into the next major release? A fixed package for etch would be nice too given it is a rather serious bug. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
