Second follow-up to "52 packages it would be nice to remove"

Hi all, Back in May I posted a list of 52 packages that had RC bugs older than a month and very few users listed in popcon: http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/05/msg00026.html In June I gave an update: http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/06/msg00063.html and I sent out emails to most of t

Re: Follow-up to "52 packages it would be nice to remove"

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>After a suitable period of time to collect replies (two weeks), I plan >>to write to the debian-qa mailing list. I'll give a summary of the >>source packages listed at the first URL above for which I received >>aff

Re: Follow-up to "52 packages it would be nice to remove"

"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After a suitable period of time to collect replies (two weeks), I plan > to write to the debian-qa mailing list. I'll give a summary of the > source packages listed at the first URL above for which I received > affirmative, negative, and no respons

Follow-up to "52 packages it would be nice to remove"

Dear QA list, This is a follow-up to this email: http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/05/msg00026.html in which I listed 51 packages that have old RC bugs and very low popcon numbers (less than or about equal to 10 installations reported). [The 52nd package is interchange-doc, which i