matthew zeier wrote:
> I find that hard to believe since google found a number of hits 
> ( is a good example)

  Which is in 1.1.5.  I have already told you multiple times that it's
known, and will be fixed in 1.1.6.  Please read my messages.

  What *isn't* known is a double free bug in 2.0-pre0.  As I said, I
haven't seen it, and neither has anyone else.  Responding that there is
a known double-free bug in 1.1.5 is beside the point.  The code in 1.1.5
is *very* different than 2.0.

> This list has so far provided the least amount of help for any open source 
> tool I've ever used.

  Is this the way I should behave if I file a bug in Mozilla?  "Stuff
went wrong in 2.0, here's a pointer to a similar bug report in 1.5.  Why
haven't you people fixed it already?"

  Honestly?  Is it such a shock when someone tells you that you need to
participate in the solution to a problem that only you're seeing?

> Since I'm running stock RHEL4, this should be easy to duplicate.  Are you 
> suggesting that if Mozilla gave you a RHEL4 system, you'd be able to fix it? 

  No.  Maybe I can try, though.

> If that's what you're saying, send me your public key and I'll have a host 
> online tonight.


  Alan DeKok.
--       - The web site of the book - The blog
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See

Reply via email to