On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:41:01PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Mats Erik Andersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This bug/deficiency has a trivial solution, in my > > view at least. Is there some reason the attached patch > > should not be applied to the upstream original? There > > is indeed a minute risk that the timing inside the > > shell between the actions > > I personally liked this patch. Does any other maintainer disagree with > me? Otherwise I can commit it.
Not that I object to it, but I think it should be committed upstream first, and Mats seems to agree with me: > Is there some reason the attached patch > should not be applied to the upstream original? -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
