* Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 08:28]:
> > Actually, this is wrong. Changing from non-free to main requires NEW
> > processing as well because the override file contains the component
> > (main, contrib, non-free).
>
> [ignoring Thomas' correction] Isn't the current-state-of-
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:39]:
> > It's kinder on the ftpmasters not to do that, and they seem to have a
> > big list of work to do already. In other words, leaving the package
> > alone, and uploading a free version to main when it's r
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 20:23]:
> > > alone, and uploading a free version to main when it's ready, requires
> > > them to make one change to the override file, instead of a removal
> > > request, followed by a NEW queueing later.
> >
> I wish I had noticed this. Oh w
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:39]:
> > > Removing it from non-free still doesn't hurt anything, since IIRC
> > > that'll have to happen anyway when it goes to main. I don't think
> > > keeping the *current* package accomplis
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:39]:
> > Removing it from non-free still doesn't hurt anything, since IIRC
> > that'll have to happen anyway when it goes to main. I don't think
> > keeping the *current* package accomplishes anything...
>
> It's kinder on the ftpmasters not
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:21:45AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > > I don't think that the QA team should be formerly adopting non-free
> > > > packages. I think our resources are best u
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:21:45AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > I don't think that the QA team should be formerly adopting non-free
> > > packages. I think our resources are best utilised on packages in main.
>
> Is not Moria going
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> reassign 274472 ftp.debian.org
> retitle 274472 RM: moria -- RoQA, orphaned, non-free
> thanks
>
> * Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-02-17 16:57]:
> > Still orphaned.
> >
> > I don't think that the QA team should be formerly adopting non-free
> > packa
* Erik Schanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-02-17 08:06]:
> > I don't think that the QA team should be formerly adopting non-free
> > packages. I think our resources are best utilised on packages in main.
> >
> Please wait a little.
> Following discussion of bug #274472 the author will change license
reassign 274472 wnpp
retitle 274472 O: moria -- A roguelike game with an infinite dungeon
thanks
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 01:21]:
> Is not Moria going GPL soon, in no little part because of our requests to
> the author when he found out just how much people sti
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I don't think that the QA team should be formerly adopting non-free
> > packages. I think our resources are best utilised on packages in main.
Is not Moria going GPL soon, in no little part because of our requests to
the author when he found out jus
reassign 274472 ftp.debian.org
retitle 274472 RM: moria -- RoQA, orphaned, non-free
thanks
* Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-02-17 16:57]:
> Still orphaned.
>
> I don't think that the QA team should be formerly adopting non-free
> packages. I think our resources are best utilised on pack
> Perhaps Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is interested in taking moria,
> because he asks for relicensing first? Sorry, Clint, if not.
No, I am not interested in maintaining moria or any of the angbands.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
Andrew Pollock:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:42:48AM +1100, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html and make an upload,
> > I suggest removal as
> > an alternative. But hey, this is just my personal opinion, I'll happily
> > accept the consensus.
> >
> Still orphaned.
>
> I
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:42:48AM +1100, Andrew Pollock wrote:
[snip]
> http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html and make an upload, I suggest removal as
> an alternative. But hey, this is just my personal opinion, I'll happily
> accept the consensus.
>
[snip]
Still orphaned.
I don't think that th
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 11:38:21AM +0100, Erik Schanze wrote:
> Hello Andrew!
>
> Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Given that moria is
> > in non-free,
> This is no reason for dropping. We should also support non-free software
> in Debian.
>
> > orphaned,
> But it is in good shape at ne
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 11:38:21AM +0100, Erik Schanze wrote:
> > and hasn't had an
> > upload in yonks,
> No new upstream version is available since last upload.
Indeed, nor do I expect there ever to be another one (though it's
possible).
> Perhaps Rene Weber, who was back fr
Hello Andrew!
Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Given that moria is
> in non-free,
This is no reason for dropping. We should also support non-free software
in Debian.
> orphaned,
But it is in good shape at newest upstream version with no bugs.
Only Standards-Version should be updated.
> o
Hi,
Given that moria is in non-free, orphaned, only a game, and hasn't had an
upload in yonks, I reckon we should remove it.
regards
Andrew
--
linux.conf.au 2005 - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ - Birthplace of Tux
April 18th to 23rd - http://lca2005.linux.org.au/ - LINUX
Canberra
19 matches
Mail list logo
