RM: gkdial -- RoQA; orphaned for 400+ days, RC-buggy, no upstream

retitle 287992 RM: gkdial -- RoQA; orphaned for 400+ days, RC-buggy, no upstream reassign 287992 ftp.debian.org thanks I think we should remove gkdial. * Orphaned for 1 year and 78 days. * Long-standing RC bug. * Did not release with sarge. * Alternatives: gnome-ppp, kppp. * The previou

RM: cscvs -- RoQA; orphaned for 300+ days, buggy

retitle 305462 RM: cscvs -- RoQA; orphaned for 300+ days, buggy reassign 305462 ftp.debian.org thanks I think we should remove cscvs. * Orphaned for 334 days. * 10 outstanding bugs. * tla-tools contains a tla-cvs-sync utility that serves the same purpose. For extracting changesets, the

RM: dcl -- RoQA; orphaned for 600+ days, buggy

retitle 247231 RM: dcl -- RoQA; orphaned for 600+ days, buggy reassign 247231 ftp.debian.org thanks I think we should remove dcl. * Orphaned for 1 year and 320 days. * 9 outstanding bugs. * Last upstream release a year ago: Though upstream t

Re: RM: dcl -- RoQA; orphaned for 600+ days, buggy

Hi Matej, On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:07:11AM +0100, Matej Vela wrote: > retitle 247231 RM: dcl -- RoQA; orphaned for 600+ days, buggy > reassign 247231 ftp.debian.org > thanks > I think we should remove dcl. > * Orphaned for 1 year and 320 days. > * 9 outstanding bugs. None of these bugs ar

Re: RM: dcl -- RoQA; orphaned for 600+ days, buggy

Hi, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:07:11AM +0100, Matej Vela wrote: >> I think we should remove dcl. > >> * Orphaned for 1 year and 320 days. >> * 9 outstanding bugs. > > None of these bugs are higher than severity: important. Is "buggy" really a > fa

RM: icecast-client -- RoQA; orphaned for 500+ days, unsupported upstream

retitle 279526 RM: icecast-client -- RoQA; orphaned for 500+ days, unsupported upstream reassign 279526 ftp.debian.org thanks I think we should remove icecast-client. * Orphaned for 1 year and 136 days. * Upstream rewrote it from scratch, and renamed it to ices:

Re: Too much stuff for one maintainer?

On Wed, 26 Jan 2006, Pawel Wiecek wrote: On Jan 25, 9:40pm, Jurij Smakov wrote: perhaps it's a better idea to find comaintainers or other maintainers by Yes, I'm planning this. Pawel Hi Pavel, Close to two months have passed now, but, as far as I can tell, the situation with your

Re: Antique RC bugs (many about licensing)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I went through the RC bugs which apply to etch and are older than one year. > > This is a rather disturbing list, as you would expect from the age of the > > bugs. > > In most