* Mar 08 02:23 Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 03:28:46PM +0100, Johan Svedberg wrote:
> > * Feb 22 23:32 Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I wish there was a way to not update not-safe-for-work channels at
> > > work.
> >
> > Upstreams says:
> >
> > "What does this bu
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 07:37:54AM +0100, Johan Svedberg wrote:
> * Mar 08 02:23 Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 03:28:46PM +0100, Johan Svedberg wrote:
> > > * Feb 22 23:32 Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I wish there was a way to not update not-safe-for-work ch
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 03:28:46PM +0100, Johan Svedberg wrote:
> * Feb 22 23:32 Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I wish there was a way to not update not-safe-for-work channels at
> > work.
>
> Upstreams says:
>
> "What does this bug mean, the DBTS report doesn't seem to say anything
> more.
* Feb 22 23:32 Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I wish there was a way to not update not-safe-for-work channels at
> work.
Upstreams says:
"What does this bug mean, the DBTS report doesn't seem to say anything
more.
Closing, doesn't make any sense to me."
Matt, if you still want to push for t
Package: blam
Version: 1.6.1-1
Severity: wishlist
I wish there was a way to not update not-safe-for-work channels at
work.
--
Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
5 matches
Mail list logo