[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: