> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:52:00PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.
> >
> > WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?
>
> Thanks for the cluebat. I didn't read the RC bug report closely enough
> and for some fubar reason the rc bug page is grouping that bug with
> am-utils. I didn't notice the header said it was assigned to 3270 since
> I started reading from the bottom of the bug report. :\ I have removed
> the NMU from the delayed queue. The bug fix for 249666 is still needed
> to be applied though. Would you like me to do that?
No, the change is very minor and won't break anything, and I plan to
do an am-utils update tomorrow.
Thanks for your work though, your intent was good. I was just
surprised at the new copyright file :-)
Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:52:00PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Chris Cheney <email address hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Here is the patch used for the delayed NMU.
> >
> > WTF is this? And why does it belong to am-utils?
>
> Thanks for the cluebat. I didn't read the RC bug report closely enough
> and for some fubar reason the rc bug page is grouping that bug with
> am-utils. I didn't notice the header said it was assigned to 3270 since
> I started reading from the bottom of the bug report. :\ I have removed
> the NMU from the delayed queue. The bug fix for 249666 is still needed
> to be applied though. Would you like me to do that?
No, the change is very minor and won't break anything, and I plan to
do an am-utils update tomorrow.
Thanks for your work though, your intent was good. I was just
surprised at the new copyright file :-)
Phil.