On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 06:42:07PM +0100, andy wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:17:36AM -0600, Art Edwards wrote: > > > >>Icedove/testing appears to be seriously broken. There was a post about > >>downgrading to icedove/stable. However, I got a segfault when I tried > >>that. I would suggest that certain core applications have more rigorous > >>requirements placed on them before the get into testing. I know that > >>there are all kinds of warnings, but > >>the (much) longer intervals between stable releases means many rely on > >>testing for hardware compatibility. > >> > > > >yours is at least the second icedove related mail today. Have you > >reported a bug? That is the purpose of testing -- to highlight bugs so > >they can be fixed. > > > >It is certainly not an *obligation* of those running testing to report > >bugs, but if they don't then the package will end up broken in the > >next stable. This, of course, is supposed to happen in unstable as > >well, to keep the number of bugs in testing down, but obviously no one > >running unstable has run in to this problem in time to keep the bug > >from propogating into testing. > > > >A > > > What version Icedove? I'm running version 1.5.0.10 (20070329) and so > far, so good. I am also updating from testing/Lenny. the other mail mentioned 2.0.0.3 which is in sid and apparently is now propogating into lenny. I don't use it, though so can't speak to the specific issues. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature