Re: Maybe remove gnomba?

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:07:03PM +1000, Andrew Pollock imagined: > Hi, > Apparently gnomba's dead upstream, and it's got a fair few open bugs. > > I believe Samba browsing is a built in function of GNOME these days, so this > package is probably redundant? > > regards > > Andrew FWIW I know t

Maybe remove gnomba?

Hi, Apparently gnomba's dead upstream, and it's got a fair few open bugs. I believe Samba browsing is a built in function of GNOME these days, so this package is probably redundant? regards Andrew

gg2 release quality

Hi, IMO gg2 isn't release quality, and should be at least removed from Sarge if not the archive altogether, based on #251960. What do others think? I believe similar functionality is available in other packages. regards Andrew

Remove trustees?

Hi, I think we can probably remove trustees: * orphaned * upstream dead * same functionality available in POSIX ACLs regards Andrew

visualos

Hi, VisualOS seems to be a native package. The previous maintainer was also the upstream developer (it's a SourceForge project). So should I convert this to a normal style package instead? Is it as straightforward as renaming the tarball? regards Andrew

Re: gbuffy needs a QA Team upload

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:04:37PM +0200, Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote: Sorry, I thought, that stable is important. What does that have to do with anything? Mike Stone

Re: rexxtk and rxsock removal

reassign 209213 ftp.debian.org retitle 209213 Please remove rexxtk reassign 198314 ftp.debian.org retitle 198314 Please remove rxsock thanks * Rick Younie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-22 07:57]: > Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Rick Younie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 16:32]: > > > > should we r

Re: rexxtk and rxsock removal

Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Rick Younie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 16:32]: > > > 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? > > > >

Re: Mail Delivery (failure [EMAIL PROTECTED])

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Confirmation de votre commande Cher(e) client(e) Annick création vous remercie de votre commande et vous souhaite une bonne journée. Nous allons la traiter votre commande dans les meilleurs délais. Merci de votre confiance et à bientôt ! Cordialement, An

Re: rexxtk and rxsock removal

Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Well, they're orphaned so people had enough time. Hmm, it seems > searchscripts depends on rxsock, o if we install rxsock now this > package will be uninstallable. Can we remove searchscripts as well? Judging from the package description the functionality seems to be pr

Re: gbuffy needs a QA Team upload

Martin Michlmayr schrieb: * Helmut Wollmersdorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 23:54]: if testing and unstable grow apart, this would be a problem. stable and testing already growed apart - very far. Huh, I was talking about testing and unstable, not stable and testing. Sorry, I tho

Re: gbuffy needs a QA Team upload

* Helmut Wollmersdorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 23:54]: > >if testing and unstable grow apart, this would > >be a problem. > > stable and testing already growed apart - very far. Huh, I was talking about testing and unstable, not stable and testing. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: rexxtk and rxsock removal

* Rick Younie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 16:32]: > > 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? > > I think rxsock will be missed but there