> > crispin | can anyone confirm whether the fix for bug 246675 caused bug 251648 ?
> > biesi | crispin, correct, it did
> > crispin | biesi: thanks for confirming that, debian has applied the patch for 246675, so cookies are horribly broken :-(
> > biesi | oh. heh. they absolutely need that second one.
> >
> > (the bug numbers in the irc extract are for the bugzilla.m.o bug database)
> >
> > (this also needs to be merged with bug 262468, but I don't know how to
> > do that :-) )
>
> Which patch is "that second one" (which would presumably fix this bug)?
> > crispin | can anyone confirm whether the fix for bug 246675 caused bug 251648 ?
> > biesi | crispin, correct, it did
> > crispin | biesi: thanks for confirming that, debian has applied the patch for 246675, so cookies are horribly broken :-(
> > biesi | oh. heh. they absolutely need that second one.
> >
> > (the bug numbers in the irc extract are for the bugzilla.m.o bug database)
> >
> > (this also needs to be merged with bug 262468, but I don't know how to
> > do that :-) )
>
> Which patch is "that second one" (which would presumably fix this bug)?
The second patch referred to is the one to bug 251648 bugzilla. mozilla. org/show_ bug.cgi? id=251648>, although I don't bugzilla. mozilla. org/show_ bug.cgi? id=251091> is needed as well.
<http://
know if the one for bug 251091
<http://
Crispin