* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030724 21:05]:
> IMHO both packages should be orphaned and Troy Hansons should be set
> to MIA (last reference found of him via google was of Februar 2002).
Surprisingly: He was very fast responsive (didn't thought so by my
google researche) and is just reappea
Hi,'
IMHO both packages should be orphaned and Troy Hansons should be set
to MIA (last reference found of him via google was of Februar 2002).
Bot packages were NMUed with maintainers permission real long ago, so
I'm setting both NMUers on Cc. xtend has a RC-bug; it's uninstallable
because of heyu
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> xinvaders: non-free, orphaned 7 months ago from an MIA maintainer. One
> "normal" (although I think by now it's probably serious, given it's
> an FHS bug) and a couple of wishlist bugs with patches in the BTS.
> E
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Didn't look at anything less than 200 days old, so that's it.
>
> Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
Making them go away sounds like quite a good thing.
- Keegan
pgp4N0bmbzyau.pgp
Description:
Andreas Barth (2003-07-24 16:13:53 +0200) :
[...]
> After looking at
> http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=erayo%40cs.bilkent.edu.tr I
> don't believe that he is ever becoming a DD (and after the
> discussion with him by mail I think that's also better). Well, he
> was also the example in the
Hi,
most of you know that I'm currently cleaning up wnpp. I get mostly
positive response, even from persons whom RFP/ITP is going to be
closed/retitled (something like: "You're right, I stopped packaging
long ago, so better retitle. If I restart, I can retitle back."). With
this I'm happy with cle
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:31, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> I was wandering about that kind of bug. It should mean that a maintainer (or a
> group of) is looking for more volunteer fo a kind of packge.
>
> It's not really a RFA, and it should probably have its own place on
> w.d.o/devel/w
I was wandering about that kind of bug. It should mean that a maintainer (or a
group of) is looking for more volunteer fo a kind of packge.
It's not really a RFA, and it should probably have its own place on
w.d.o/devel/wnpp page.
RFC does not sounds good, but RFCM or RFH might.
Any comment?
ci
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:16:31PM +0200, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld écrivait:
> > Hi.
> >
> > While searching through the RC bug list I found the package bnc
> > wich has an RC bug ("no Build-Depends"), maintainer is
> > Brian Ris
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> While searching through the RC bug list I found the package bnc
> wich has an RC bug ("no Build-Depends"), maintainer is
> Brian Ristuccia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He has three packages,
> all have the same bug (but at the other pac
Hi,
Le Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld écrivait:
> Hi.
>
> While searching through the RC bug list I found the package bnc
> wich has an RC bug ("no Build-Depends"), maintainer is
> Brian Ristuccia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He has three packages,
> all have the same bug (but
Hi.
While searching through the RC bug list I found the package bnc
wich has an RC bug ("no Build-Depends"), maintainer is
Brian Ristuccia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He has three packages,
all have the same bug (but at the other packages it is not at
RC severity yet). All have been not
uploaded for o
tags 142247 + pending
tags 160811 + pending
thanks
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:14:38AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> And, finally, I started to work on a french translation.. :-)
>
> So, as you may see, I will change the patch and, in its final form, it
> will close 16 bugs.
I've closed th
Quoting Frank Lichtenheld ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > If it is really unmaintained currently, I'll try the new patch sent by
> > Denis and then upload a NMU.
>
> No need to do that. I have prepared a QA Upload for it[0] and will
> incorporate Denis' patch today. If you want I can send it to you
> to
OK, I'm doing a bit of bug reviewing here, and have found a few packages I
think should probably be removed. Just looking for some feedback from
others with probably more experience than me as to whether I'm being
overzealous or not.
As to criteria: I only looked through the oldest of the imprope
One word before: I would like if a DD wants to "sponsor" the tackling,
means discussion me the action items before doing.
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030724 01:35]:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:35:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The RC-bugs (and the packages they belong to) can IMHO
16 matches
Mail list logo
