Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > Err, the version number may be strange, but why is this a bug > in fvwm? The package still performs OK, does it not? >
The BTS is used to report all kinds of problems with the package, not just pure functionality bugs. I am running my own fvwm package for several years, following the upstream version number, as usual. The broken version number of the fvwm package on the official server makes it look newer until there is a real upstream version 2.5.130. Regards Harri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
