On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:38:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >reopen 388695 >thanks > >On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:18:49PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:10:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: >> >On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:56:26PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> Hey Steinar, > >> >> I'm curious why you re-opened #388695. It all *seems* fixed, and there's >> >> no comment from you to explain why it should be re-opened... > >He originally reopened it at my request.
OK; some comment in the reopen mail to say that might have been useful! >> >It's working now (matching versions are in testing) but a fix is needed >> >to ensure that mismatched versions can't be installed, ie tighter >> >dependencies. > >> Yup, true. That's not release-critical in my opinion. As I've just >> closed this bug, do you want to re-open and set the severity to >> something lower? > >If this bug allows a user of sarge to install individual packages from etch >in an inconsistent an unusable configuration, then it is RC. Yup, I was wrong. Sorry for any hassle caused... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
