> I feel your pain, but this isn't the priority.
It appears the main issue here is that the original bug reporter did not
use the correct bug template.
However, I must admit that even I find the SRU process a bit confusing.
Despite this, from what I can gather, this issue qualifies as a "high-
> Would be very nice if Canonical would prioritize this issue.
> It's like the AD join problem all over again.
I feel your pain, but this isn't the priority. I went through this when
I joined my current employer and had to switch to Ubuntu. Coming from a
different distribution, I found a whole
Would be very nice if Canonical would prioritize this issue.
It's like the AD join problem all over again.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2039070
Title:
[BPO]
I don't see me fit this task, as I obviously wasn't able to choose the
correct bug solution I doubt that I will be of any use along the
process. If someone with more insight is not able to easily change the
correct solution strategy I don't see me doing that.
--
You received this bug
Backports are intended for new functionality or features, and should not
be used to fix bugs. This sounds very much like the current jammy
openconnect is broken with some cisco servers, and should be fixed via
SRU instead of using backports. Please open a bug and proceed using the
normal SRU
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: network-manager-openconnect (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is subscribed to the bug report.
** Summary changed:
- BPO] network-manager-openconnect(-gnome)/1.2.8-3 from lunar to jammy
+ [BPO] network-manager-openconnect(-gnome)/1.2.8-3 from lunar to jammy
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is subscribed to the bug report.
