When this bug was filed (almost 2 years ago), I don't believe that particular package existed yet, and if it did it had this issue at the time. I'll have to double check and verify if it was ever fixed, if so then "closed" would be the proper status, not "invalid".
When this bug was filed (almost 2 years ago), I don't believe that particular package existed yet, and if it did it had this issue at the time. I'll have to double check and verify if it was ever fixed, if so then "closed" would be the proper status, not "invalid".