Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

2000-01-14 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 01:49:44PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote: > OK. So, as a kind of synthesis : > > - a package cgi-scripts [ ok : natural name] *may* be of some use ; > - but, today, the package named that way is almost useless, or even dangerous; > > So, can it be pushed form orphaned to wi

Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

2000-01-14 Thread Thierry Laronde
Hello, On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 01:25:44AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote: > > [...] > > > > Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be here just to exaggerate the size of > > the package : archie | fortune | finger | uptime | calendar |

Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

2000-01-14 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote: > Hello, > > I'm having a look to a few orphaned packages, including cgi-scripts. > [...] > > Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be here just to exaggerate the size of > the package : archie | fortune | finger | uptime | calendar

Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

2000-01-14 Thread Thierry Laronde
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 05:10:35AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote: > > > Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be here just to exaggerate the size of > > the package : archie | fortune | finger | uptime | calendar | date are > > b

Re: ITU ezmlm-src

2000-01-14 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 09:51:56PM +0200, Jaakko Niemi wrote: > I'm Intending To Update the ezmlm-src package. This would > be an NMU, and I have not received a reply from the maintainer > (Roberto Lumbreras) to a message I sent week a go to him. > > I updated the package to contain lat

Re: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

2000-01-14 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:24:18PM +0100, Thierry Laronde wrote: > Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be here just to exaggerate the size of > the package : archie | fortune | finger | uptime | calendar | date are > basic Bourne Shell scripts invoking a command ! imho we should get this packag

Re: Looking for a package to adopt

2000-01-14 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 09:55:36PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > I lost the response I got on the last one. I think the answer was that > someone just needs to port the stuff on the old page to the new page. > (Someone correct me if that's wrong.) At that point we can redirect from > the old to t

RE: Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

2000-01-14 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
Make the package usable, meaning you would use it on your systems, would tell other people to use it, etc. I never touch a package I don't personally use. Beyond that, if a package is a collection of things from all over the net, feel free to add, change and manipulate them. If it comes from a s

Package cgi-scripts : bugs easy, but is it worth ?

2000-01-14 Thread Thierry Laronde
Hello, I'm having a look to a few orphaned packages, including cgi-scripts. There are two bugs. Bug #47708 about mailto.pl which is something easy to address. By the way, with a little work, this perl script is the only thing that is worth in the package. Actually, 75% of the scripts seem to be