[Bug 380836] Re: jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect

2009-10-10 Thread Geir Hauge
https://help.ubuntu.com/9.04/serverguide/C/cups.html is still wrong. Will this page ever be corrected with the above patch? -- jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/380836 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is

[Bug 380836] Re: jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect

2009-10-10 Thread Connor Imes
Geir, this was fixed in the documentation for Karmic, but there aren't any plans to do a Stable Release Update [1] for Jaunty as I don't think it meets the SRU requirements. [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates If after reading that link you feel otherwise, please feel free to say so

[Bug 380836] Re: jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect

2009-08-17 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
This bug was fixed in the package ubuntu-docs - 9.10.4 --- ubuntu-docs (9.10.4) karmic; urgency=low * General: - Updating version numbers for 9.10/Karmic - Refresh pot files * About-ubuntu: - reword first sentence to clarify system version number, LP: #395905 *

[Bug 380836] Re: jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect

2009-07-26 Thread Dougie Richardson
Pushed this patch and re-bound my branch. Should have actually been pushed this time. ** Changed in: ubuntu-docs (Ubuntu) Status: Triaged = Fix Committed -- jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/380836 You received this bug notification because you

[Bug 380836] Re: jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect

2009-07-25 Thread Connor Imes
** Changed in: ubuntu-docs (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided = Medium ** Changed in: ubuntu-docs (Ubuntu) Status: New = In Progress ** Changed in: ubuntu-docs (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) = Connor Imes (rocket2dmn) -- jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect

[Bug 380836] Re: jaunty cups documentation appears incorrect

2009-07-25 Thread Connor Imes
I marked bug 400990 as a duplicate of this, and used the contents of that patch to fix your first point. I hadn't noticed this bug report at the time I wrote the patch for that bug earlier today. As it turns out, your second comment doesn't require changing the file path, the contents of that