On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 11:30:16AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> A grave bug has been file against a package I maintain pointing out
> that the package does not work on AMD64 and in fact never has, even
> though it builds on AMD64. Since it turns out this package has never
> worked on AMD64, this b
"Shaun Jackman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A grave bug has been file against a package I maintain pointing out
> that the package does not work on AMD64 and in fact never has, even
> though it builds on AMD64. Since it turns out this package has never
> worked on AMD64, this bug is not a regres
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 02:08:00PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 11:30:16AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > A grave bug has been file against a package I maintain pointing out
> > that the package does not work on AMD64 and in fact never has, even
> > though it builds on AMD6
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 11:30:16AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> A grave bug has been file against a package I maintain pointing out
> that the package does not work on AMD64 and in fact never has, even
> though it builds on AMD64. Since it turns out this package has never
> worked on AMD64, this b
[Shaun Jackman]
> A grave bug has been file against a package I maintain pointing out
> that the package does not work on AMD64 and in fact never has, even
> though it builds on AMD64. Since it turns out this package has never
> worked on AMD64, this bug is not a regression, but the status-quo.
>
hi shaun,
perhaps someone else will be able to answer this more authoritatively
but in the meantime...
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 11:30:16AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> A grave bug has been file against a package I maintain pointing out
> that the package does not work on AMD64 and in fact never h
6 matches
Mail list logo
