Re: Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

2003-08-09 Thread Marc Haber
On 09 Aug 2003 05:11:39 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >ifupdown surely looks bad. Shouldn't someone else take over the package then? Greetings Marc, not feeling fit to take the package, but seriously thinking about a fork -- -- !! No

Re: Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

2003-08-08 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:39:52 +0100, Andrew Suffield > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. > > > >ppp *was* unmaintained, for a long period of

Re: Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

2003-08-08 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:25:21PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:39:52 +0100, Andrew Suffield > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. > > > >ppp *was* unmaintained,

Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

2003-08-08 Thread Marc Haber
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:39:52 +0100, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. > >ppp *was* unmaintained, for a long period of time. When exactly is a package (take ifupdown for