On Thu, 2013-06-06 at 20:41 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > Well, perhaps we should make libproxy *query* pacrunner, but not use > pacrunner's libproxy replacement. That's "just another information > source" for libproxy, but the patch has been languishing for years > without being applied. > http://code.google.com/p/libproxy/issues/detail?id=152 I think that's probably the way forward for now. I've updated the bug above with a new patch, tested in the F19 libproxy package. I've also dropped the libproxy-replacement part of the pacrunner package that I've submitted at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971888 If someone could review that package, I'd be most grateful. I've actually passed it through fedora-review and posted the results myself, but of course I'm not allowed to tick the box for my own package :) -- dwmw2
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
