On 21/02/11 at 10:29 +0100, trophime wrote: > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 17:08 +0000, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > retitle 587854 RFP: getdp-sparskit -- general environment for the treatment > > of discrete problems > > noowner 587854 > > thanks > > > > Hi, > > > > This is an automatic email to change the status of getdp-sparskit back from > > ITP > > (Intent to Package) to RFP (Request for Package), because this bug hasn't > > seen > > any activity during the last 6 months. > > > > If you are still interested in adopting getdp-sparskit, please send a mail > > to > > <cont...@bugs.debian.org> with: > > > > retitle 587854 ITP: getdp-sparskit -- general environment for the > > treatment of discrete problems > > owner 587854 ! > > thanks > > > > However, it is not recommended to keep ITP for a long time without acting on > > the package, as it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from > > packaging that software. It is also a good idea to document your progress on > > this ITP from time to time, by mailing <587...@bugs.debian.org>. > > > > Thank you for your interest in Debian, > > Hi, > I manage to create a package for getdp-sparkit within the latest getdp > source package which is in unstable. > > Shall I rebuild a new getdp to close this bug?
I don't understand. Is getdp-sparkit a binary package from the getdp source package? If so, you don't need an ITP for it. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110222063200.gc13...@xanadu.blop.info
