On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 10:25 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> The BTS doesn't understand that a bug can be found in snort/2.9.2-1 and
> fixed in snort/2.9.2-1, so I removed the "found in" annotation.
The BTS doesn't understand it, because it doesn't make sense. ;-)
(either 2.9.2-1 contains the bug, o
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:25:30AM +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> The BTS doesn't understand that a bug can be found in snort/2.9.2-1 and
> fixed in snort/2.9.2-1, so I removed the "found in" annotation.
Thanks for the clarification, I misread the emails to control@b.d.o.
Regards
Javier
--
T
Hi Javier (2012.01.28_19:05:26_+0200)
> Why is this not considered fixed? This was fixed with the upload of libdaq to
> unstable.
I was trying to get the bug tracking system to acknowledge that the
problem had been fixed, and snort should be allowed to migrate to
testing. As it was fixed it a diff
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:48:13PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > # err, that didn't work
> > notfixed 656289 snort/2.9.2-1
> Bug #656289 {Done: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a } [snort]
> snort 2.9.1-1 is uninstallable and unbuildable in unstable due to dependency
> on libdaq0 and
4 matches
Mail list logo