On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 23:31 +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > This bug would be 'grave' if hurd-i386 was a released architecture. > No, it would still be "important" -- it doesn't make the package unusable or mostly so. > I've just talked to Neal again and he still thinks the patch is good. > So, could you please apply it for your next upload? This is really a > nasty showstopper for the Hurd port right now. > Will have a check myself, but looks reasonable. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part