Julien Cristau dijo [Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:51:26AM +0200]: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 16:28:12 +0100, something...@sodium.serveirc.com > wrote: > > > So it turns out the main bug does not affect amd64 (or more generally, > > roughly systems where (LONG_MAX>>2) >= INT_MAX). > > > > There are at least two bugs in the tag comparison: > > - Assumes number equality is the same as VALUE equality. > > - Assumes hash equality is the same as string equality. > > > Ryan, Ruby extras maintainers, any progress with this RC bug in > libhpricot-ruby? > I'd remove this package from testing, except it has a couple of reverse > (build-)dependencies...
Oh, I just now realized this bug has been reopened... I do think (but will not single-handedly demote it) the bug's severity has been inflated - I use hpricot on a frequent basis, and it's far from "renders the package useless". It does not work, right, but for very specific use cases.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
