[
Date Prev
][
Date Next
] [
Thread Prev
][
Thread Next
] [
Date Index
] [
Thread Index
]
Bug#483086: Could we do something about this bug? was gs-common should be in oldlibs
To
:
483086@bugs.debian.org
, Debian Printing Team <
debian-printing@lists.debian.org
>
Subject
: Bug#483086: Could we do something about this bug? was gs-common should be in oldlibs
From
: Bastien ROUCARIES <
roucaries.bastien@gmail.com
>
Date
: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:33:04 +0200
Message-id
: <
[🔎]
CAE2SPAafmWmPSV37P4RTWSMf=vTUy1669CPYcNeHJ4NjokJxrQ@mail.gmail.com
>
Reply-to
: Bastien ROUCARIES <
roucaries.bastien@gmail.com
>,
483086@bugs.debian.org
hi, Could we do something about this bug asking to gs-common to be in oldlibs ? Thank you. Bastien
Reply to:
debian-printing@lists.debian.org
Bastien ROUCARIES (on-list)
Bastien ROUCARIES (off-list)
Follow-Ups
:
Bug#483086: Could we do something about this bug? was gs-common should be in oldlibs
From:
Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
Prev by Date:
Bug#475873: Serious bug was config files left around after switch to ghostscript?
Next by Date:
Bug#475873: Serious bug was config files left around after switch to ghostscript?
Previous by thread:
Processed: Re: Bug#475873: Serious bug was config files left around after switch to ghostscript?
Next by thread:
Bug#483086: Could we do something about this bug? was gs-common should be in oldlibs
Index(es):
Date
Thread