Tatsuya Kinoshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > he (at ftwca.de) wrote: >> Tatsuya Kinoshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Please allow wl-beta_2.15.5+0.20061203-1 into etch. It is 7 days >>> old, and no RC bugs. >>> It is a new upstream version and the diff is not small, but the >>> changes are mostly bug fixes, and no new/significant features. >> Sorry, I will not add a unblock hint for this package. The diff is too >> big for the few bug-fixes included in the new version. > I've checked that the most important bug was fixed by a 2 line patch. > > Could you please allow wl-beta_2.15.4+0.20061015-2 with the 2 line > patch to fix an IMAP connection bug for testing-proposed-updates > to replace wl-beta_2.15.4+0.20061015-1?
Could you describe the bug and show the diff (for example by filing a bug with a patch)? It's a bit hard to judge something you don't know :) Marc -- BOFH #312: incompatible bit-registration operators
pgpL60IRR4jP0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
