Hi, On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > But, according to the bug log at http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gail.html, > that release is the following: > gail (1.8.11-3) UNRELEASED; urgency=low > * Revert changes of 1.8.11-2 as release team explained that a simple > re-upload is enough for non-bin-NMU-able packages, and that bin-NMU-able > packages should be taken care of by them. > * Update watch file to track stable upstream releases. > > -- Loic Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:59:56 +0200
I think you looked at the experimental uploads. I certainly didn't upload with "UNRELEASED" as the target dist and it certainly would be rejected by our archive software. > And, as bug #406378 reports, the behavior of bug #378346 is indeed back. It seems like a similar problem indeed. Whether it's the same, I can't tell yet for sure. > Loic: if you concur in this diagnosis, can you please reassign #406378 > to gail appropriately? I don't think there's enough information to be sure that it is the same bug as #378346; it might even not be gail related. I'll request the information to the submitter, especially a backtrace of the crash, preferably with debug symbols, is really needed. If I don't get his reply, you're welcom to reassign to gail if you see the crash is in libgail. Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
