(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #21)
> (In reply to eggert from comment #20)
> > OK, so in that case how about if we update Bug#17356 by (1) saying it is no
> > longer a duplicate of Bug#11053 (as we've fixed the latter but not the
> > former), and (2) reopening Bug#17536? If I understand you correctly, that
> > would match the symptoms you describe.
>
> Yes, I think that this is the best solution.
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #21)
> (In reply to eggert from comment #20)
> > OK, so in that case how about if we update Bug#17356 by (1) saying it is no
> > longer a duplicate of Bug#11053 (as we've fixed the latter but not the
> > former), and (2) reopening Bug#17536? If I understand you correctly, that
> > would match the symptoms you describe.
>
> Yes, I think that this is the best solution.
OK, done.