* Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you feel that the bugreport was improperly filed and should be
> closed?
>
Yes, I think bug 158005 should be closed. It was marked as requiring
more info to fix and I agree - there are no steps given, so I can't even
try to reproduce this.
> Just
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:39:41PM -0300, Aaron Small wrote:
> The reason no one's bothered fixing these bugs may not be that no one
> uses the package, but that no one runs into these. The last two at least
> deal with improperly dealing with files that are corrupt anyway.
So you feel that the bu
About removing the figurine package, I use this regularly, since there
are some things xfig does poorly with respect to object snapping and dia
really does something pretty different.
I'm not a debian developer, but I'd be willing to act as an upstream
maintainer if that will keep this package in
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:24:48PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:04:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
> >
> > They all look good;
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:04:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
>
> They all look good; make it so, I think. This one in particular:
Bugs sent for all bar qcl (
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
They all look good; make it so, I think. This one in particular:
> qcl: 4 month old RC bug, absolutely no interest from anyone to fix it.
> Nothing in twel
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> xinvaders: non-free, orphaned 7 months ago from an MIA maintainer. One
> "normal" (although I think by now it's probably serious, given it's
> an FHS bug) and a couple of wishlist bugs with patches in the BTS.
> E
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Didn't look at anything less than 200 days old, so that's it.
>
> Does anyone else have any opinions on the removal of these packages?
Making them go away sounds like quite a good thing.
- Keegan
pgp4N0bmbzyau.pgp
Description:
OK, I'm doing a bit of bug reviewing here, and have found a few packages I
think should probably be removed. Just looking for some feedback from
others with probably more experience than me as to whether I'm being
overzealous or not.
As to criteria: I only looked through the oldest of the imprope
9 matches
Mail list logo
