Re: slink elm not Y2K?
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Craig Small wrote:
> Vincent Renardias said:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Craig Small wrote:
> > > I have made the following changes to the Y2K pages:
> > > elm-me+ <=2.4pl25ME+52-1 BAD http://www.ozone.fmi.fi/KEH/elm-2.4ME+.README
> > > elm-me+ 2.4pl25ME+56-1 OK? http://www.ozone.fmi.fi/KEH/elm-2.4ME+.README
> >
> > 2.4pl25ME+65-1 OK? (65, not 56... ;)
> I changed the last one to >= so it is "OK?"
Almost... ;)
it currently reads:
elm-me+ >=2.4pl25ME+56-1 OK?
while it should read
elm-me+ >=2.4pl25ME+65-1 OK?
^^
I just saw another problem; the table says:
emacs20 20.2 OK?
while there *is* a y2k bug in emacs20 20.3-10. (see #43249)
Cordialement,
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS vincent@{{ldsol,pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux: GNOME : -
- http://www.fr.debian.org http://www.gnome.org -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every man has two nations, and one of them is France" [Benjamin Franklin]
Reply to: