* Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-10 18:37]:
> I don't think this would be the least-wrong way. In any case it
> would be mgetty-bugfixed, not mgetty-ng, which would make even less
> sense.
Please try to get the broken packages fixed properly instead of
forking. If there's no other
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-10 15:27]:
> > > My question now is: How should I proceed? Should I do a NMU? (If yes:
> > > Who is willing to sponsor it?) Should I try to hijack?
>
> > Did you consider uploading of a new source mgetty-ng which
> > replaces/provides/conflicts with mge
Hi, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Yes, I considered that. However, I do not like that. If a package is
> broken, it should IMHO be fixed and not duplicated. But if this is the
> least-wrong way, I would go it.
I don't think this would be the least-wrong way. In any case it would be
mgetty-bugfixed, not
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030910 15:27]:
> * Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030910 15:05]:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:43:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > I also offered
> > > to take over maintainership, or co-maintainership if the current
> > > maintainer prefer t
* Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030910 15:05]:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:43:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I also offered
> > to take over maintainership, or co-maintainership if the current
> > maintainer prefer this.
> What was the answer?
That he plans to abandon mgetty
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:43:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I also offered
> to take over maintainership, or co-maintainership if the current
> maintainer prefer this.
>
What was the answer?
> However, as we get nearer the sarge release time, my understanding of
> not inclusion the patches
6 matches
Mail list logo
