Bug#439931: Bug#439827: Patch 65-dfa-optional.patch causes grep regressions

2007-09-05 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:01:08PM +0200, Nicolas François wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:45:50PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > tag 439931 - confirmed > > thanks > > (I don't understand why you un-confirm 439931; it looks like a valid and > reproducible bug to me) I thought that it was spec

Bug#439827: Patch 65-dfa-optional.patch causes grep regressions

2007-09-05 Thread Nicolas François
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:45:50PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > tag 439931 - confirmed > thanks (I don't understand why you un-confirm 439931; it looks like a valid and reproducible bug to me) > Hello, did you see #439931 too? I did not check, but I guess that re-adding the old 64-egf-speedup.p

Bug#439827: Patch 65-dfa-optional.patch causes grep regressions

2007-09-05 Thread Justin Pryzby
tag 439931 - confirmed thanks Hello, did you see #439931 too? On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 09:23:32PM +0200, Nicolas François wrote: > tags 439827 patch > tags 439827 -upstream > thanks > > Hello, > > The regressions in grep 2.5.3~dfsg-1 are caused by patch > 65-dfa-optional.patch. > > It should be

Bug#439827: Patch 65-dfa-optional.patch causes grep regressions

2007-09-05 Thread Nicolas François
tags 439827 patch tags 439827 -upstream thanks Hello, The regressions in grep 2.5.3~dfsg-1 are caused by patch 65-dfa-optional.patch. It should be removed. As it was used in combination to 64-egf-speedup.patch (which was already removed) to speed up grep in UTF-8 environments, the resulting gre