* Stefan Huehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-27 17:40]:
> Is was thinking about reporting bugs against all reverse
> dependencies to remove the conditional ' | libgd1' part so that no
> cruft is left in the archive after the removal of the gd1 group of
> packages.
Yes, sure. Please go ahead and
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:39:05PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Stefan Huehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-27 17:13]:
> > as the description of libgd1-{xpm-noxpm} says this library version is
> > old and no longer maintained upstream.
> >
> > What about changing all reverse dependencies to
* Stefan Huehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-27 17:13]:
> as the description of libgd1-{xpm-noxpm} says this library version is
> old and no longer maintained upstream.
>
> What about changing all reverse dependencies to use libgd2 so that
> libgd1 can be removed from the archive?
>
> A lot of
Hi,
as the description of libgd1-{xpm-noxpm} says this library version is
old and no longer maintained upstream.
What about changing all reverse dependencies to use libgd2 so that
libgd1 can be removed from the archive?
A lot of the reverse dependencies already use literally 'libgd1 | libgd2'
a
On Friday 26 May 2006 06:00, Andrew Pollock was like:
> rosegarden is just a meta-package that depends on rosegarden2 for
> transition purposes.
>
> rosegarden2 is also orphaned, and recommends (not in a package relationship
> kind of way) that people look at rosegarden4 instead.
>
> So I'm incline
Chris Hanson wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> As discussed in this bug, mhash's maintainer appears to be MIA or out to
>> lunch.
>>
>> Is it OK if we forcibly orphan the package now?
>
> What exactly do you want me to do?
The classic thing to do is to send a note to the bug trail saying one of
6 matches
Mail list logo
