Recursive dependency?

[Mark Linimon]

On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 08:44:44PM +0200, Tobias Roth wrote:
> > So does this mean that 37596 needs to be reopened?  Sem?
> 
> 'Someone' was me, and I can confirm that 37596 still is a problem
> as of today with -STABLE. That's why I pointed Mike to it and asked
> him to keep sem@ in the loop.

OK, as bugmeister I'm going to reopen it and mark it as 'suspended'
while the fix is being worked on, because it's my belief that that's
the way it should have been set in the first place.

I'm quite aggressive in closing PRs ... when it's clear the problem
has been fixed or the circumstances no longer relevant, but that
doesn't sound like the case here.

mcl