On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 04:24:29PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Here we go: #460338.
Err, rather: #576821.
Sorry: cut and paste error.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietr
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Two more months have passed after this ping, without any reaction. I'm
> hence going to file a removal RoQA request for apt-proxy. The idea of
> the transitional package is not in contrast with that action, it can
> simply be add
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 02:43:50PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 10:24:28AM +0100, Xavier Lüthi wrote:
> > As apt-proxy do not have anymore any active developper but only some
> > package maintainers, and taking into account the number of bugs filed
> > for apt-proxy, I
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 10:24:28AM +0100, Xavier Lüthi wrote:
> "Francesco P. Lovergine" a écrit :
> > severity 460338 grave
> I agree to raise the severity of this bug as it renders the package
> unusable.
> In the past month, I've tried to have apt-proxy's package in a better
> shape, but the n
Hi,
Le Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:43:31 +0100,
"Francesco P. Lovergine" a écrit :
> severity 460338 grave
> thanks
>
I agree to raise the severity of this bug as it renders the package
unusable.
> I finally removed today apt-proxy in my work LAN because this hanging
> onto update is a too common p
5 matches
Mail list logo
