Re: Consider removing iraf from testing

2004-02-12 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-30 17:47]: > Is it worth keeping iraf-ibin? It only suggests iraf, but I thought > I'd ask. Got bored with waiting, so I requested its removal. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Consider removing iraf from testing

2004-02-02 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:30:00PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-30 17:47]: > > Is it worth keeping iraf-ibin? It only suggests iraf, but I thought I'd > > ask. > > And iraf-noaobin? See my post earlier in this thread. # This does indeed seem to be

Re: Consider removing iraf from testing

2004-02-02 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-30 17:47]: > > It needs to be repackaged from scratch at this point, and the person > > who I was working with on it hasn't sent me anything about it for > > quite some time. I don't have time right now to do a complete > > rebuild. I'll resubmit it in

Re: Consider removing iraf from testing

2004-01-30 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:21:29AM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:59:41PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > This does indeed seem to be the case. I've marked iraf (and necessarily > > iraf-noaobin too) to be removed from testing; it'll have a chance to > > return if its release-c

Re: Consider removing iraf from testing

2004-01-30 Thread Colin Watson
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:49:40PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > ==> remove iraf/2.11.3-2 > > #223543: FTBFS -- requires a bootstrap process which doesn't autobuild > #223532: Major FHS violation -- files under /usr/iraf > #218793: ships /usr/bin/xpp, conflicting with xpp package (with no Confl