On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:07:33PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > Fluxbox just got an RC bug which caused me to elevate the > severity of another to merge the two: #308052, #309958 > The bug only exists in the 0.9.11-1 package, and has been fixed by > the 0.9.12-1 package, which has been sitting in unstable for 23 > days, so it theoretically should have made it in to sarge before the > freeze. > Would you please accept fluxbox 0.9.12-1? Otherwise, please let us > know so that we can provide a backport as 0.9.11-2 via t-p-u. Given > that 0.9.12 fixes some silly bugs in 0.9.11, the former would be > preferable. On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 11:27:27PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > This has been fixed in 0.9.12-1. We are trying to decide whether > > a backport to 0.9.11 is necessary for sarge, or whether we can > > release 0.9.12. > I'm sorry, but it's not fixed in 0.9.12-1. blackbox 0.70.0-4 and > fluxbox 0.9.12-1 still both contain bsetroot binary and man page (and > don't conflict). Right, so, please upload a fixed version of 0.9.11 to testing-proposed-updates. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature