Dead bod, >> ... I find it puzzling that Debian has used "known broken" patches (over >> and above the "upstream" code), instead of the "proper" ones. > > I'm rather confused by this assertion. > Please clarify exactly which "known broken" patches have been applied, > and additionally provide the upstream change number of the "proper" > ones.
I apologize if I was not clear enough. What I meant to say: Debian has applied patches/changes to the "upstream" perl5-porters code; these patches/changes were known not to solve the problem; while at the time fully functional patches had been submitted to Debian. Why were not the "good" patches used? (All this discussion and patches are available in http://bugs.debian.org/203426 http://bugs.debian.org/220486 Should I provide excerpts or otherwise point to specific sections?) Cheers, Paul Szabo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au:8000/u/psz/ School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney 2006 Australia
