On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:41:22PM -0800, David Schleef wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:03:29PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > > > These are all fixed in 0.3.3-1, which is blocked from even making it > > > into sid because liboil0.3 is in NEW. > > > > So should swf-player be removed from sarge?
> No, why? It's fixed in sid. > (Did I put the wrong tag on it?) Having this bug fixed in unstable doesn't do us any good for sarge if it's been replaced by a package that can't be built from source. Why does swf-player need liboil0.3? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
