On 26 July 2010 06:54, Andrew Bennetts <email address hidden> wrote:
> This appears to be the same as bug 593484, with practically identical
> fixes proposed. The only difference is this bug (and its fix) is
> against the Ubuntu package, whereas 593484 (and its fix) is against
> upstream.
Yes I saw that after proposing the merge, I wasn't sure what to do
about it so I just left it. I suppose it would make the most sense go
with the patch to upstream, as this probably isn't worth a version
bump of the package.
On 26 July 2010 06:54, Andrew Bennetts <email address hidden> wrote:
> This appears to be the same as bug 593484, with practically identical
> fixes proposed. The only difference is this bug (and its fix) is
> against the Ubuntu package, whereas 593484 (and its fix) is against
> upstream.
Yes I saw that after proposing the merge, I wasn't sure what to do
about it so I just left it. I suppose it would make the most sense go
with the patch to upstream, as this probably isn't worth a version
bump of the package.
--
Matt Wheeler
<email address hidden>