On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:40:43AM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > 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.
That wasn't what my script did, it was what I myself manually did, and I indeed missed your NMU. I was tricked (and annoyed) by the useless maintainer changelog entry of the maintainer (he should have used -v option to the building scripts). Note that I marked neither of these two bugs 'VERIFIED', as I wasn't sure these were genuine cases. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl