Re: critical bugs which can be closed or demoted
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Only libstdc++2.8-dev should be standard in hamm.
> > libg++272-dev should have extra priority.
> Shouldn't libstdc++2.9-dev be standard and libstdc++2.8-dev be extra now?
Yes, but I was talking about hamm.
This bug was about hamm, fixing it would not require to recompile
any package, it would just require to change a single line in the
override file before creating the Packages file.
There was a hamm release the day before yesterday, so it *could* have been
fixed, unfortunately it wasn't so we will have to wait for 2.0r5 to see it
fixed (let's hope).
"e3ce2d79caf3766f8d329fb8dff16a8f" (a truly random sig)