Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-15 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* 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-

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-15 Thread Matthew Vernon
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* 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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-14 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* 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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-14 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-14 Thread Matthew Vernon
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-13 Thread Martin Michlmayr
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-13 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-03-13 Thread Martin Michlmayr
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2005-02-16 Thread Andrew Pollock
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2004-11-14 Thread Andrew Pollock
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2004-11-11 Thread Rene Weber
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

Re: Let's remove moria

2004-11-11 Thread Erik Schanze
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