* Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-22 11:56]:
> syscalltrack isn't looking too flash:
...
> Looks like it's already on Martin's radar for removal...
Yeah, I only wanted to give people some time to object, but I guess
I've waited long enough.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-22 11:57]:
> I didn't see a lot of cries to keep raidtools out of the discussion
> that this generated.
I marked it down for removal already. I'll do it before sarge
releases.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 06:03:23PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-10 17:29]:
> > Do we need to have three different RAID packages in sarge?
> >
> > From the package description, it's only necessary for unpatched 2.2 kernels.
>
> I agree that raidtoo
Hi,
syscalltrack isn't looking too flash:
* approaching two years orphaned
* 3 release critical bugs
* Grossly out of date with upstream (and upstream hasn't released in over a
year)
Looks like it's already on Martin's radar for removal...
regards
Andrew
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>
> The simplest "official" solution would be to offer the changelogs
> in the way you do accessible via packages.debian.org/changelog:
>
> What do you think about that? (we should perhaps offer an abbrevation for
> changelog, too
Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hi,
> should we remove rexxtk and rxsock?
>
> Rick, the previous maintainer, said in #253206 that there is no big
> interest in rexxtk, I don't know about rxsock.
> Rick, what's your opinion?
Hi,
I think rxsock will be missed but there wasn't enough interest
for a new ma
Martin Michlmayr schrieb:
Well, personally, I'm a bit afraid of testing and unstable moving
apart... for example, all developers use unstable rather than testing
but we ship testing...
Don't forget all the users, which have testing for a long time now,
because woody is very outdated.
if t
* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 17:16]:
> Thinking about completely removing it leads me to a question about
> the package removal proposed by Andreas Barth: having the suite of
> packages in unstable and testing to differ *considerably*, is a good
> or a bad think? Should it be enc
* Martin Michlmayr [Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:38:07 +0100]:
> * Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-20 20:17]:
> > since I have not yet decided if I'm to adopt it or not (upstream
> > seems to be dead)
> Maybe it should just be removed?
I'd remove it from testing right now.
Thinking about c
* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-20 20:17]:
> since I have not yet decided if I'm to adopt it or not (upstream
> seems to be dead)
Maybe it should just be removed?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
reassign 201391 ftp.debian.org
retitle 201391 Please remove yadex
thanks
* Emanuele Rocca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-20 21:20]:
> >From #138072:
Yeah, I guess it's time to remove it. It has been orphaned for about
a year.
> yadex was packaged originally for a person who was planning to join t
11 matches
Mail list logo
