Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-20 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Thorsten Glaser wrote: >>+ C3 Ezla). >^ > > You introduced a pasto. Good catch. Patch attached. Index: changelog === --- changelog (révision 5393) +++ changelog (copie de travail) @@ -1,11 +1,16 @@ eglibc (2.13-38) UN

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-20 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Jonathan Nieder dixit: >- Athlon/Opteron, VIA C3 Nehemiah, but not VIA C3 Ezra). ^ >+ C3 Ezla). ^ You introduced a pasto. bye, //mirabilos -- Darwinism never[…]applied to wizardkind. There's a more than fair amount of[…] stupidity

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-03 Thread Regid Ichira
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:08:35PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > severity 692154 minor > tags 692154 + patch > quit > > Regid Ichira wrote: > > > Package description mentions 2.6 kernels. These days, Debian also > > have 3.2 kernels. Shouldn't the description mention those kernels > > too?

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-02 Thread Jonathan Nieder
severity 692154 minor tags 692154 + patch quit Regid Ichira wrote: > Package description mentions 2.6 kernels. These days, Debian also > have 3.2 kernels. Shouldn't the description mention those kernels > too? How about this patch? Thanks, Jonathan Index: changelog

Bug#692154: Shouldn't description mention also 3.2 kernels?

2012-11-02 Thread Regid Ichira
Package: libc6-i686 Version: 2.13-35 Severity: normal Package description mentions 2.6 kernels. These days, Debian also have 3.2 kernels. Shouldn't the description mention those kernels too? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe".