|
From: | Ian Perryman |
Subject: | bug#23842: 24.4; Runaway background process |
Date: | Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:02:22 -0400 |
I don't understand why this was closed, when everyone agrees that the
command fails in the current sources. It happens to fail in a different
way to the original report, but so what? There's still obviously a bug.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |