Camaleón wrote: > But it seems the problem remains (read comment #45) so dunno why it was > archived with apparently no additional clues on the current status: This was the message that closed it. It was sent to 617940-done and so the bug was marked as closed. The other bug was forcibly merged with this one and so it was closed too. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=617940#26 > > At this point if the bug is still active it might be more effective to > > open a fresh bug on it with all of the current details. > > Can't tell what would be best proceeding (reopening or a new report). It > will depend on the humour of the developer in charge >;-) Agreed. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature