I always found it strange that cdrdao (which is required by e.g. k3b) is not in the official AMD64 archive. Now I found this bugreport[1], already attached is a fix, which has been tested by quite a few people. And still the maintainer Andrew Suffield refuses to accept this patch in quite a strange attitude.
I read a lot[2,3] of people complaining about the behaviour of asuffield, but did neither know nor care anything about it. But now I see it myself. Given such circumstances (these kinds of "helpful" responses), I can understand that the AMD64 team was a bit unhappy with the non-official status of the port before testing became etch. But what about now, to what extent is AMD64 official enough, to change this kind of behaviour? I guess further requests in the bug report are useless. Thanks for your work and patience (especially Goswin), Frank 1: http://bugs.debian.org/249642 2: http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/freesoftware/20050805-00 3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/08/msg00074.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
