Bug#388695: Why reopen these bugs?

2006-10-15 Thread Steve McIntyre
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,

Bug#388695: Why reopen these bugs?

2006-10-15 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:12:04AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 04:38:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: 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

Bug#388695: Why reopen these bugs?

2006-10-14 Thread Steve McIntyre
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... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] C++ ate my sanity -- Jon Rabone signature.asc Description:

Bug#388695: Why reopen these bugs?

2006-10-14 Thread Steve McIntyre
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... Hi Steve, It's

Bug#388695: Why reopen these bugs?

2006-10-14 Thread Hamish Moffatt
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... Hi Steve, It's working now (matching versions are in testing) but a fix is

Bug#388695: Why reopen these bugs?

2006-10-14 Thread Steve Langasek
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

Processed: Re: Bug#388695: Why reopen these bugs?

2006-10-14 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 388695 Bug#388695: geda-gschem: Probably parenthesis mismatch in errors in gschem Bug#389154: geda-gschem: gschem crashing after start and gschem don't work properly Bug reopened, originator not changed. thanks Stopping processing here.