On 12/11/14 08:42 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote: > Is that enough to get gcompris working again? If so, I would be > inclined to drop the severity to normal and after I've received a > patch from upstream for both the help and the man page, upload a new > version with the patch applied. I'm pretty sure it's meant to work > this way (i.e. isn't, in fact, broken, but just poorly documented.)
In fact, if we agree it's a doc bug (and it does look that way to me) then the move of this bug to tuxpaint, predicated on your assumption that a regression in tuxpaint broke gcompris (i.e. that the doc was right and the code was wrong) should be reversed. Therefore, I've moved it back. I've also lowered the priority to important. While it's a shame that gcompris can no longer start tuxpaint and it's important to fix, I don't think that renders gcompris unsuitable for release. I'm filing a separate bug, myself, on tuxpaint to fix the doc. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
