I have just updated the bug referred to in comment 11 - which is almost certainly the problem addressed in comment 12 - saying that the new package referenced in comment 14 appears to have solved bug 626042. Two for the price of one?
I have just updated the bug referred to in comment 11 - which is almost certainly the problem addressed in comment 12 - saying that the new package referenced in comment 14 appears to have solved bug 626042.
Two for the price of one?