On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 21:15, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 09:05:49PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 01:39, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> Please reply to debian-python with fix reports or reports of false >> >> positives. > >> > Not quite either of these, but in a similar vein, I've filed bug #584833 >> > against gourmet with the patch from Ubuntu for this issue as part of >> > regular >> > due diligence on the Ubuntu side > >> thanks for that > >> > so gourmet should probably be exempted from the MBF. > >> but it seems it has more than what was fixed in -3 revision. > > Boh, you're right. :/ Sorry, I hadn't checked that the patch was > comprehensive because the app's been working fine for me on python 2.6, so I > guess these are all corner cases. I'll follow up on this (and yes, the > suggestion to omit from the MBF is null and void)
yeah that's what I meant: I was reviewing the fixed/pending/done mails against Jabuk's script esults executed minutes before and noticed this package was still there; so yes, it is in the MBF. Sorry for having been a bit too cryptic :) Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimgh7sur6oxemllk6df-i0ytj9syqyhvfpdo...@mail.gmail.com
