Since octave2.1 is marked wontfix (because it will no longer be relevant when gcc 4.3 is the default), is it acceptable to tag this bug that way as well? I presume that octave2.1-forge depends on octave2.1, but I haven't checked. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature