[FIXED] Re: Why was Bug#40360 not closed automatically?

1999-09-27 Thread Thomas Schoepf
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 09:07:22PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >I just noticed that the BTS lists 2 outstanding important bugs > >(#40360,#40459) against mutt, although they have been closed by > mutt_0.95.7-1: > They have been reopened, the bug is not fixed. Argl, my mistake. And because I h

Re: Why was Bug#40360 not closed automatically?

1999-09-26 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Sep 26, Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I just noticed that the BTS lists 2 outstanding important bugs >(#40360,#40459) against mutt, although they have been closed by mutt_0.95.7-1: They have been reopened, the bug is not fixed. If someone understands automake please help. -- ci

Why was Bug#40360 not closed automatically?

1999-09-26 Thread Thomas Schoepf
I just noticed that the BTS lists 2 outstanding important bugs (#40360,#40459) against mutt, although they have been closed by mutt_0.95.7-1: In /usr/doc/mutt/changelog.Debian.gz I read: mutt (0.95.7-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release (closes: #40459, #40360, #39793, #37843, #3800