* Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> Am I right in assuming that the patches submitted by Bas are what's
> included as 300_iconv.diff in the source package?
Yes.
> If so it looks like the last version (patch5) inadvertently disabled
> itself:
Correct.
> Or is there another reason why the patch is included in the source
> but disabled?
Because it's not the way upstream decided to go. A package based on
the current upstream cvs is available in experimental.
> Can the patch be reenabled for Etch?
I don't think it's a good idea, the problem Eduard reported in this
bugreport still exists.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
