Re: Suggesstion to remove lxdoom

2007-08-09 Thread Jon Dowland
> > On Tuesday 7 August 2007 01:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff > > wrote: > > > I've seen that lxdoom has been orphaned. It can be > > > safely removed: While lxdoom is completely dead > > > upstream, we have a cleaned-up fork of lxdoom in the > > > archive, which is actively maintained: prboom. I'm glad

Re: Suggesstion to remove lxdoom

2007-08-08 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 12:13:51PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Tuesday 7 August 2007 01:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > I've seen that lxdoom has been orphaned. It can be safely removed: > > While lxdoom is completely dead upstream, we have a cleaned-up > > fork of lxdoom in the archive, w

Re: Suggesstion to remove lxdoom

2007-08-08 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
On Tuesday 7 August 2007 01:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > I've seen that lxdoom has been orphaned. It can be safely removed: > While lxdoom is completely dead upstream, we have a cleaned-up > fork of lxdoom in the archive, which is actively maintained: prboom. Is it a drop in replacement? Then w

Suggesstion to remove lxdoom

2007-08-07 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff
I've seen that lxdoom has been orphaned. It can be safely removed: While lxdoom is completely dead upstream, we have a cleaned-up fork of lxdoom in the archive, which is actively maintained: prboom. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [