Re: [dms22@cam.ac.uk: Bug#54193: Mutt 1.0 under slink lacks dotlock]

To: Debian Development <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [dms22@cam.ac.uk: Bug#54193: Mutt 1.0 under slink lacks dotlock]
From: Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:55:54 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20000106145554.C8839@finlandia.infodrom.north.de>
Reply-to: Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.north.de>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20000106144604.A1358@wonderland.linux.it>; from md@linux.it on Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 02:46:04PM +0100
References: <[🔎] 20000106144604.A1358@wonderland.linux.it>

Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Please remove the mutt NMU. Looks like it's fucked up and it's not even
> needed.
> 
> BTW, this is another case of a developer doing a NMU without asking the
> maintainer.

This is also a good reason why we should not simply, naively, dumbly...
recompile potato packages for proposed-updates but backport the patch
instead.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
to answer.   -- Perl book

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [dms22@cam.ac.uk: Bug#54193: Mutt 1.0 under slink lacks dotlock]
  - From: md@linux.it (Marco d'Itri)

References:
- [dms22@cam.ac.uk: Bug#54193: Mutt 1.0 under slink lacks dotlock]
  - From: md@linux.it (Marco d'Itri)

Prev by Date: [dms22@cam.ac.uk: Bug#54193: Mutt 1.0 under slink lacks dotlock]
Next by Date: Where is libgl?
Previous by thread: [dms22@cam.ac.uk: Bug#54193: Mutt 1.0 under slink lacks dotlock]
Next by thread: Re: [dms22@cam.ac.uk: Bug#54193: Mutt 1.0 under slink lacks dotlock]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread