On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (01/11/2008):
>> Except for qtparted the popcon numbers are all pretty low.
>
> I just had a very quick look upstream, and last activity seems to have
> happened in 2004.
Upstream SVN ha
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (01/11/2008):
> Except for qtparted the popcon numbers are all pretty low.
I just had a very quick look upstream, and last activity seems to have
happened in 2004.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> retitle 501946 ITA: php-openid -- php openid library
> thx
>
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 02:43:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Raphael Geissert
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> php-openid - #501946
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if this one shou
retitle 501946 ITA: php-openid -- php openid library
thx
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 02:43:10PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Raphael Geissert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> php-openid - #501946
> >
> > I'm not sure if this one should be removed. There's still the ope
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Raphael Geissert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> php-openid - #501946
>
> I'm not sure if this one should be removed. There's still the openid momentum
> and there is (are?) some packages in mentors that depend on it.
Perhaps the people who are packaging stuff that d
Hi Cristoph,
Christoph Berg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I intend to file a new round of removal requests from testing for
> packages that were not part of etch and are orphaned:
>
[...]
> php-openid - #501946
I'm not sure if this one should be removed. There's still the openid momentum
and there is (ar
Christoph Berg wrote:
> Joey had concerns against the removal of sparkline-php in July. Popcon
> lists 5 installations, so I'd propose to remove it. Joey?
It would make ikiwiki buggy by causing it to suggest a package
that is not in the distribution, and by removing one of its features.
--
see s
Re: Frank Lichtenheld 2008-07-20 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've compiled a list of orphaned packages that were not part of etch
> (and, unless otherwise noted, were not part of sarge).
>
> I think it would be a good idea to remove some of them (at least from
> testi
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:32:29PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > # #491892: RoQA; NPOASR, orphaned
> > remove hg-buildpackage/1.0.4.1
> > # #491891: RoQA; NPOASR, orphaned
> > remove krecordmydesktop/0.1~alpha1+debian-2
> > # #491900: RoQA;
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've reassigned the bugs to ftp.debian.org for packages that should be
> removed from Debian completly. I would suggest the following removals
> from testing at this point:
>
> # #491892: RoQA; NPOASR, orphaned
> remove hg-buildpackage/1.0.4.1
> # #49
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 07:34:30PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 04:45:42PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > I've compiled a list of orphaned packages that were not part of etch
> > (and, unless otherwise noted, were not part of sarge).
> >
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:54:23PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=npolsr-cleanup;[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
>
> Let me see if I got it right:
> You filed a bug against karchiver because it:
> * is not in etch (because it was n
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 02:20:58AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 03:37:46AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > That is indeed a true statement, but I'm unsure what point you're trying
> > to make in the context of this discussion.
> >
> > Care to elaborate?
>
> Sure. The p
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 03:37:46AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> That is indeed a true statement, but I'm unsure what point you're trying
> to make in the context of this discussion.
>
> Care to elaborate?
Sure. The point I am trying to make is that encouraging someone to
adopt a package whe
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:44:12AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 01:21:19AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > So you think the Debian QA group, consisting of at most a dozen people
> > who do QA uploads, maintaining over 500 packages, will take better care
> > of it?
>
> T
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 01:21:19AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> So you think the Debian QA group, consisting of at most a dozen people
> who do QA uploads, maintaining over 500 packages, will take better care
> of it?
The commitment for maintaining a package should be greater than "will do
a
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh really? so we should just say "sorry, no more foo for you" to the
> almost 22k users who have imlib on their system?
We should be trying to move applications to the current version of imlib
so that we can retire the no-longer-maintained older vers
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 05:50:10PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Yes. It's orphaned. If you really care about the package, please adopt it.
> > Thanks.
>
> I do care about the package but as a spare user, not as a maintainer; I
> won't put my name on a package I really
Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
> DFSG:
* Social Contract
>> 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
>>
>> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
>> community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 22 July 2008 21:54, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> You filed a bug against karchiver because it:
> [...]
>> * is orphaned (...); and because
> [...]
>> And because of those reasons we are preventing a package from being
>> shipped in lenny? Is that right?
>
Hi,
On Tuesday 22 July 2008 21:54, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> You filed a bug against karchiver because it:
[...]
> * is orphaned (...); and because
[...]
> And because of those reasons we are preventing a package from being shipped
> in lenny? Is that right?
Yes. It's orphaned. If you really care
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:54:23PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Let me see if I got it right:
> You filed a bug against karchiver because it:
> * is not in etch (because it was not uploaded in time for etch),
> * is orphaned (...); and because
> * it has a "low" popco
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 04:45:42PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>> I've compiled a list of orphaned packages that were not part of etch
>> (and, unless otherwise noted, were not part of sarge).
>>
>> I think it would be a good idea
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 04:45:42PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> I've compiled a list of orphaned packages that were not part of etch
> (and, unless otherwise noted, were not part of sarge).
>
> I think it would be a good idea to remove some of them (at least from
> tes
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 05:31:42PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sunday 20 July 2008 16:45, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > I think it would be a good idea to remove some of them (at least from
> > testing) before lenny's release.
> [..]
> > Comments, objections?
>
> Looks good to me (to remove a
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>
> >openmotif: popcon 782/90/347/32/313, looong orphaned, non-free, RC bug,
> >rdepends: arb, motv, was part of oldstable
> >-> keep in unstable, prod arb maintainer, remove motv
>
> I
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:40:01PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Some of these packages were orphaned within the past month. I don't feel
> such packages should be removed from testing; people may just not have
> reacted to the orphaning yet.
IME after the first few days it rarely makes any difference
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
openmotif: popcon 782/90/347/32/313, looong orphaned, non-free, RC bug,
rdepends: arb, motv, was part of oldstable
-> keep in unstable, prod arb maintainer, remove motv
I'm the maintainer of arb. The former version of arb had serious trouble with
Some of these packages were orphaned within the past month. I don't feel
such packages should be removed from testing; people may just not have
reacted to the orphaning yet.
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> cryopid: popcon 233/23/203/7/0, RC bug, no rdepends
> -> keep in unstable
This seems potentiall
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 05:21:30PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du dimanche 20 juillet 2008, vers 16:45,
> Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait :
> > libsvg: popcon 602/8/35/4/555, no rdepends (library)
> > -> remove
> There is no bug in it and it seems u
Hi Frank,
On Sunday 20 July 2008 16:45, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> I think it would be a good idea to remove some of them (at least from
> testing) before lenny's release.
[..]
> Comments, objections?
Looks good to me (to remove as suggested), thanks for the work! For those
packages in testing,
OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du dimanche 20 juillet 2008, vers 16:45,
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait :
> libsvg: popcon 602/8/35/4/555, no rdepends (library)
> -> remove
There is no bug in it and it seems up-to-date.
--
panic ("No CPUs found. System halted.\n");
2.4.3 l
Hi.
I've compiled a list of orphaned packages that were not part of etch
(and, unless otherwise noted, were not part of sarge).
I think it would be a good idea to remove some of them (at least from
testing) before lenny's release. Including a package in a stable release
gives it much m
33 matches
Mail list logo
