On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM, James Mckenzie
wrote:
> Austin English wrote:
>>That's messy. Have them cc themselves to the original bug, and when
>>its fixed, retest. No need to file a bug only to close it immediately
>>as a duplicate.
>>
> I realize it's ugly, but I'm thinking like a software
Austin English wrote:
>Sent: Jan 26, 2009 11:48 AM
>To: James Mckenzie
>Cc: Alexandre Julliard , Paul Vriens
>, "wine-devel@winehq.org"
>Subject: Re: Bugzilla question with respect to .NET 1.1SP1
>
>On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, James Mckenzie
> wrote:
&
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, James Mckenzie
wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard
>>Sent: Jan 26, 2009 7:21 AM
>>To: Paul Vriens
>>Cc: James Mckenzie , "wine-devel@winehq.org"
>>
>>Subject: Re: Bugzilla question with respect to .NET 1.1SP1
>>
>
Alexandre Julliard
>Sent: Jan 26, 2009 7:21 AM
>To: Paul Vriens
>Cc: James Mckenzie , "wine-devel@winehq.org"
>
>Subject: Re: Bugzilla question with respect to .NET 1.1SP1
>
>Paul Vriens writes:
>
>> So that means bug 14850 needs to be reopened with a li
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Paul Vriens writes:
>
>> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>> Paul Vriens writes:
>>>
So that means bug 14850 needs to be reopened with a link to 13995?
>>> No, if it's the same bug it should be a single report. If .NET doesn't
>>> install then obviously all apps that t
Paul Vriens writes:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>> Paul Vriens writes:
>>
>>> So that means bug 14850 needs to be reopened with a link to 13995?
>>
>> No, if it's the same bug it should be a single report. If .NET doesn't
>> install then obviously all apps that try to install it will be broken,
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Paul Vriens writes:
>
>> So that means bug 14850 needs to be reopened with a link to 13995?
>
> No, if it's the same bug it should be a single report. If .NET doesn't
> install then obviously all apps that try to install it will be broken,
> it doesn't make sense to c
Paul Vriens writes:
> So that means bug 14850 needs to be reopened with a link to 13995?
No, if it's the same bug it should be a single report. If .NET doesn't
install then obviously all apps that try to install it will be broken,
it doesn't make sense to create a separate bug for each app that
Paul Vriens wrote:
>Sent: Jan 26, 2009 7:10 AM
>To: James Mckenzie
>Cc: "wine-devel@winehq.org"
>Subject: Re: Bugzilla question with respect to .NET 1.1SP1
>
>James Mckenzie wrote:
>> Paul Vriens
>>> Sent: Jan 26, 2009 4:45 AM
>>> To: &qu
James Mckenzie wrote:
> Paul Vriens
>> Sent: Jan 26, 2009 4:45 AM
>> To: "wine-devel@winehq.org"
>> Subject: Bugzilla question with respect to .NET 1.1SP1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an application that won't install because it's tryi
Paul Vriens
>Sent: Jan 26, 2009 4:45 AM
>To: "wine-devel@winehq.org"
>Subject: Bugzilla question with respect to .NET 1.1SP1
>
>Hi,
>
>I have an application that won't install because it's trying to first do an
>install of .NET 1.1 and straight
Hi,
I have an application that won't install because it's trying to first do an
install of .NET 1.1 and straight after that an upgrade/update to SP1.
.NET 1.1SP1 install fails (see bug
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13995).
Should I create a new bug report and say that it depends on 13
12 matches
Mail list logo
