Bug#584942: Bug#583738: Bug#575798: Bug#584942: by the way

2010-11-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:59:06PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: On Montag, 15. November 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Please see here: [...] Both are recent entries of one of the three merged bugreports you are replying to - would be nicer if you read before asking, but thanks for the question

Bug#583738: Bug#575798: Bug#584942: by the way

2010-11-15 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, On Montag, 15. November 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Please see here: [...] > Both are recent entries of one of the three merged bugreports you are > replying to - would be nicer if you read before asking, but thanks for > the question anyway. Thanks for assuming I havent read those URLs y

Bug#583738: Bug#575798: Bug#584942: by the way

2010-11-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:34:42AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: On Montag, 15. November 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Still present where? With which version of ghostscript did you test? Please try the newest packaging as requested here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=78;att=0

Bug#583738: Bug#575798: Bug#584942: by the way

2010-11-15 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, On Montag, 15. November 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Still present where? With which version of ghostscript did you test? > > Please try the newest packaging as requested here: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=78;att=0;bug=583738 I can only see ghostscript 9.0 packages th

Bug#575798: Bug#584942: by the way

2010-11-14 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 06:39:42PM +0100, Peter Gervai wrote: yeh the bug's still present, Still present where? With which version of ghostscript did you test? Please try the newest packaging as requested here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=78;att=0;bug=583738 If possible