Package: wnpp Severity: normal The current maintainer of mico-2.3.5, Stephen Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, has orphaned this package. If you want to be the new maintainer, please take it -- retitle this bug from 'O:' to 'ITA:', fix the outstanding bugs and upload a new version with your name in the Maintainer: field and a
* New maintainer (Closes: #thisbug) in the changelog so this bug is closed. Some information about this package: Package: mico-2.3.5 Binary: mico-bin, libmico-dev, libmico2.3.5 Version: 2.3.5-2 Priority: optional Section: devel Package: mico-bin Priority: optional Section: misc Installed-Size: 4172 Maintainer: Stephen Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Architecture: i386 Source: mico-2.3.5 Version: 2.3.5-2 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.3-1), libncurses5 (>= 5.2.20010310-1), libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2, libmico2.3.5 Recommends: libmico-dev Conflicts: mico, mico-2.2.6, mico-2.3.0 Filename: pool/main/m/mico-2.3.5/mico-bin_2.3.5-2_i386.deb Size: 1001144 MD5sum: ad273228aab43368c11c75c60b5bfb40 Description: A fully compliant CORBA implementation, executables The acronym MICO expands to MICO Is CORBA. The intention of this project is to provide a freely available and fully compliant implementation of the CORBA standard. MICO has become quite popular as an OpenSource project and is widely used for different purposes. As a major milestone, MICO has been branded as CORBA compliant by the OpenGroup. . Executables * Tille, Andreas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20020204 11:11]: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Stephen Crowley wrote: > > > Perhaps someone could checked if the new upstream version 2.3.6. > > > Would fix all issues. > > > > Please.. go ahead.. I don't really have time/patience to maintain mico > > anymore. There are numerous upstream issues, mainly the library naming issue > > that upstream refuses to fix. In fact I don't know if anything actually uses > > this pacakge any more.. maybe it can just be removed? > In this case you should just Orphan the package to let people know about > this fact. Moreover it shuold just be removed from testing. > > Could you care about that or should someone else set the maintainer field > to QA? -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
