Interesting timimg :)
I finally got a go-ahead from the previous task-science maintainer to adopt
his package, which I found muddled (and buggy where it intersected with some
of my packages). I posted a suggestion for a new one to d-devel last night,
and so far only heard "break it up further i
Julian> Package: auto-pgp Section: contrib/mail Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1),
Julian> perl5, pgp
Julian> -> pgp in non-US/non-free, so moves to non-US/contrib
Fine by me. Upstream (which is Ian Jackson) has long abandoned auto-pgp, and
out move to gpg will render it more and more obsolete. I s
Josip> However, if QA Group members make 3 consecutive bugfix uploads
Josip> within two months, with still no action from the actual package
Josip> maintainer, then the package will be marked orphaned, and the
Josip> 'Maintainer' field of the package will be set to "Debian QA Group
Josip
Johnie> This seems to go against current practice -- AFAIK its only been
Johnie> done once ("xbase"), with Overfiend kicking and screaming the whole
Johnie> way.
That's why I asked, I don't like it that much either.
Johnie> Better to put ogonkify in the ogonkify package, and have a2ps
Edward> A bad idea.
I thought so too.
Edward> If they are both part of the same source package, just make it
Edward> multi-binary. If a2ps depends on ogonkify, make it depend on
Edward> ogonkify.
Upstream doesn't think splitting is such good idea.
Edward> If the two can not be spl
Soemone recenly announced an ITP ogonkify. Yes, this already exists, but is
part of a2ps. Both the upstream authors of a2ps and of ogonkify are happy
with that situation and don't feel strongly in favour of a distinct ogonkify
package.
So it was suggest to create an empty ogonkify package (which
Santiago> IMHO, the way the question was formulated makes the "ok" from the
author
Santiago> to be Debian-specific, but the maintainer disagrees.
Santiago> Following Ian's proposed policy for "controversial" bug reports,
Santiago> I'm reassigning this one to "debian-policy".
Good idea.
Look, why don't you just pack your bags and start your _own_ thing. As you
know it all, the end product would surely be better, and user and developers
all over the planet would gladly follow you.
But in the meantime, give us some peace and quiet in what you believe to be a
copletely misguided,
Bruce> This is in response to a complaint from Ted Tso's, who is the
Bruce> upstream maintainer of e2fsutils. He said that Red Hat takes care of
Bruce> its own bugs, and we should as well. I have to agree with him.
File the complaintt under Debian haters. How many Debian-positive notes have
Marcus> But my PPP link does not, means that I can't spare costs.
You can always subscribe with your @debian.org and use procmail on master to
cache mail ids and discard duplicates before it forwards to your preferred
address.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rosebud.sps.queensu.ca/~edd PGP K
10 matches
Mail list logo
