[martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> - 22:07PM Friday May 20]: > Fluxbox just got an RC bug which caused me to elevate the > severity of another to merge the two: #308052, #309958 Sorry guys to cause this concern, but I don't feel that the bug Bas has reported justifies a sarge-rc bug. The version that he reported it against, 0.9.12-1, is not a candate for the sarge release. 0.9.11-1 is a candidate, however it does not have this problem. > 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. I believe it is the other way around - the bug only exists in the 0.9.12-1 package, and the 0.9.11-1 package is 'okay'. > 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. Well, if I could use this an excuse to get 0.9.13 into sarge, I'd be a happy boy - however, I realise this isn't going to happen. As I don't believe the problem is sarge-rc, I don't think there is a need for t-p-u uploads. Please, feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong. I'd hate to make a mistake here and cause our users to have more difficulties. Matt.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature