Re: Process for doing a "QA upload"

2003-09-12 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 04:27:44PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > Is there a documentation somewhere about the Correct way to do a QA > upload. In fact, I even don't know whether what I intend to do *is* a > QA upload?;..?:-) A QA upload is an upload of an orphaned package with the Maintainer:

Re: Packages in need of TLC...

2003-09-12 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > Package: word2x > > Maintainer: Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > FTBFS bug open over 2 years, no response from the maintainer. Last > > Hmm, yeah, I'll probably talk to him. word2x should probably be dropped, since we have wv*. Unless the

Re: Process for doing a "QA upload"

2003-09-12 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 04:27:44PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > (please CC me to answers) > > > Is there a documentation somewhere about the Correct way to do a QA > upload. In fac

Process for doing a "QA upload"

2003-09-12 Thread Christian Perrier
(please CC me to answers) Is there a documentation somewhere about the Correct way to do a QA upload. In fact, I even don't know whether what I intend to do *is* a QA upload ;.. :-)

Re: Packages in need of TLC...

2003-09-12 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* tbm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-12 21:19]: > > Package: preferences > > Maintainer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frederico S. Munoz) > > Recorded and contacted, thanks. His email bounces, orphaned his packages. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Packages in need of TLC...

2003-09-12 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-12 00:17]: > Package: freenet-unstable > Maintainer: Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Orphaned. I'd like to remove this; I'll talk to the maintainer of frost. > Package: realtimebattle > Maintainer: Fredrik Hallenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I mailed h

Re: Need help with mgetty and maintainership problems

2003-09-12 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-10 18:37]: > I don't think this would be the least-wrong way. In any case it > would be mgetty-bugfixed, not mgetty-ng, which would make even less > sense. Please try to get the broken packages fixed properly instead of forking. If there's no other

Re: Need help with mgetty and maintainership problems

2003-09-12 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-10 15:27]: > > > My question now is: How should I proceed? Should I do a NMU? (If yes: > > > Who is willing to sponsor it?) Should I try to hijack? > > > Did you consider uploading of a new source mgetty-ng which > > replaces/provides/conflicts with mge