On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 20:42:10 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 21:51:42 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > > > >> > >> Would this fix be appropriate for squeeze, or should I hold off? > >> > >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586459 > >> > >> The bug's probably not "important" since the circumstances involved are > >> likely to be rare, but the consequences are fairly severe. > >> > > Looks ok at first glance, though I don't know what the various macros it > > uses do. > > OK, I have this fix prepared, but not uploaded yet. > > Could you give me an opinion about this one? > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=397757 > > I'm tempted to consider including the fix since it's causing people > trouble, and upstream, our gnus package, and Romain's snapshot package > all behave differently. The fix would mean dropping this patch and > reverting to the upstream behavior: Sounds ok. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature