Re: should request-tracker be removed?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:22:11AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > request tracker has several important and grave bugs - open for over > half a year. If I trust John Goerzen in #191165 the "Command-line > utilities totally inoperable as shipped". > > Maybe we should remove request tracker? Does it have a sensible upgrade path to request-tracker-3? If so, I'd say cut it loose, since nobody seems to really give a crap about it. Otherwise, I'd call it a maybe - moreso if the bugs in it are nasty ones. There's a new major version upstream, and if nobody's willing to fix the problems, and they're going to cause serious damage, it's probably time for it to go bye-bye. - Matt
Re: should request-tracker be removed?
* Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-18 06:22]: > request tracker has several important and grave bugs - open for over > half a year. If I trust John Goerzen in #191165 the "Command-line > utilities totally inoperable as shipped". > > Maybe we should remove request tracker? jaq and dopey were planning on cleaning up this package, but I haven't seen any progress since July. Jaq? -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should request-tracker be removed?
This one time, at band camp, Martin Michlmayr wrote: >* Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-18 06:22]: >> request tracker has several important and grave bugs - open for over >> half a year. If I trust John Goerzen in #191165 the "Command-line >> utilities totally inoperable as shipped". >> >> Maybe we should remove request tracker? > >jaq and dopey were planning on cleaning up this package, but I haven't >seen any progress since July. Jaq? I lack the time and the commitment to do it, and I believe Matt feels the same. I think it would have been an interesting challenge, but right now I think removal is the way to go. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~jaq
Re: Unreachable maintainer: Greg Hookey
* Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-13 22:49]: > I would like to request that libpqxx be orphaned. I am making a lot > of use of libpqxx at the moment (hence my interest in it), so I would > be willing to adopt the package unless there are any objections > against that. Go ahead. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unreachable maintainer: Greg Hookey
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-13 22:49]: >> I would like to request that libpqxx be orphaned. I am making a lot >> of use of libpqxx at the moment (hence my interest in it), so I would >> be willing to adopt the package unless there are any objections >> against that. > > Go ahead. Thanks! Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Re: should request-tracker be removed?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:22:11AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > request tracker has several important and grave bugs - open for over > > half a year. If I trust John Goerzen in #191165 the "Command-line > > utilities totally inoperable as shipped". > > > > Maybe we should remove request tracker? > > Does it have a sensible upgrade path to request-tracker-3? We did not release request-tracker with woody it seems. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Should libfltk1 be removed?
Hi, libfltk1 is orphaned, is in oldlibs, and only one package still depends on it (if I'm not mistaken). Juan, any chance you can rebuild pose against fltk1.1 in the near future so fltk is not needed at all anymore? Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Could use some web page listing how to report DD MIA
I just visited http://qa.debian.org/> looking for info on how to report a debian developer that I suspect is missing in action. Looking at the plan package, I starting to suspect that the maintainer Gopal Narayanan is missing in action. If I remember correctly, the QA team is the group that want these messages, but I am unable to find out how you want it reported. It would be nice if I could simply insert the debian user name in some web form, and that this would make the QA team aware of the problem, and put him on the list of developers to check out and perhaps orphan the packages of if the maintainer fail to surface. Do you have such system? Do you want it? Should I report the problem in a different way?
Re: Should libfltk1 be removed?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Martes, 18 de Noviembre de 2003 17:40, escribió: > Hi, Hi. > libfltk1 is orphaned, is in oldlibs, and only one package still depends > on it (if I'm not mistaken). > > Juan, any chance you can rebuild pose against fltk1.1 in the near future > so fltk is not needed at all anymore? That's my idea, rebuild it with fltk 1.1 and gcc 3.3, but I haven't been able to do it by now. I'll retry again the migration as soon as possible, but I can't promise a quick solution. Ideas and help are accepted. > Peter Yours, - -- Juan Manuel Garcia Molina Debian GNU/Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ug0z42HTkrCqhFARAvilAKDg3JDjK8qzL7Cgdz6dtnMcV+D4LACgnG8q OhXmPqSVWq34YYV5hat8TxU= =sK/9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Is cpanel orphaned or not?
Hi, I've been working though the list[1] of orphaned packages with the maintainer still set to the old maintainer, and I've arrived at cpanel. I notice that there has been a sponsored upload made recently[2] I just wanted to know if this package was indeed orphaned? If so, I'll make an upload with the maintainer set to the QA group, otherwise, could you please close bug #213908? regards Andrew [1] http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cpanel/news/1.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: should request-tracker be removed?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:47:53PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:22:11AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > > Maybe we should remove request tracker? > > > > Does it have a sensible upgrade path to request-tracker-3? > > We did not release request-tracker with woody it seems. Really? I could have sworn it was in there. Oh well, that makes it less of a problem - users of a stable release won't know what they're missing. Still, if it's possible, I think we'd be well served to try and help testing/unstable users to transition if that's practical. - Matt
Re: Is cpanel orphaned or not?
* Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-19 07:35]: > I notice that there has been a sponsored upload made recently[2] > > I just wanted to know if this package was indeed orphaned? If so, I'll > make an upload with the maintainer set to the QA group, otherwise, could > you please close bug #213908? Well, yeah, it's supposedly not orphaned since foka finally made the upload; but on the other hand I haven't heard from Kam Tik for ages. Last time I tried to contact him his email bounced. If that continues, I'm just going to remove that package. For now, feel free to close the WNPP bug. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
