On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:36:56AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > The bug was originally filed on another package, hence the weird version > number. Because of that, I'm not 100% sure the bug is also present in > the version currently in sarge, but since other imagemagick bugs on the > list definitely are, I guess this one is too.
imagemagick in sarge is fine, actually. Both bugs you listed have been fixed long ago in an NMU. Your script caught a later version where the maintainer finally closed the fixed bugs. Regards, Daniel.
