Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:30:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > What if the main creators of the software prefer acknowledging substantial > contributions with proper attribution and copyright notice in the file > preambles? I don't think what the main creators decide to acknowledge (or not) has any

Re: Pidgin 2.10.4

On 07/10/2012 03:46 AM, Stu Tomlinson wrote: > > > Just about. co-maintainers welcome. > > Regards, > > > Stu. > I will be happy to help. -- Jan Synacek Software Engineer, BaseOS team Brno, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm

Re: Unable to login to Koji website

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Matt Spaulding wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: >> >> Look at the certificate in Firefox (Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> >> View Certificates -> Your Certificates), under "Fedora Project". Hit >> View, and look under "Validity". I bet

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > If > you're not able to keep track of all your copyright holders then > changing the license is something you should only do with the aid of > good lawyers. While the pendantics do have a pendantic point, in practice the mere *cost* of dem

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:27:37PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:52:23 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Revision control or some sort of out-of-band tracking. It's the > > project's responsibility, not the copyright holder's. > > That's hardly feasible and not accurate e

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 01:36:14AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > What if the main creators of the software prefer acknowledging substantial > contributions with proper attribution and copyright notice in the file > preambles? They do list different names in different files, and there are > only

Re: Pidgin 2.10.4

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:06:44 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> >>> On it. If someone else is also, let me know and I'll stop. >> >> What's up with the maintainer? >> >> Last built the packa

Re: Unable to login to Koji website

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: > > Look at the certificate in Firefox (Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> > View Certificates -> Your Certificates), under "Fedora Project". Hit > View, and look under "Validity". I bet _that_ one has expired, or isn't > imported. > > fedora-pa

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On Seg, 2012-07-09 at 15:21 -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 16:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Removing: raptor > > flickcurl requires libraptor.so.1 > > flickcurl requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 > > flickcurl-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.f

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 16:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Removing: raptor >> flickcurl requires libraptor.so.1 >> flickcurl requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 >> flickcurl-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 >>

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On Seg, 2012-07-09 at 05:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sex, 2012-07-06 at 16:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Removing: raptor > > flickcurl requires libraptor.so.1 > > flickcurl requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 > > flickcurl-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17

Re: Unable to login to Koji website

On Seg, 2012-07-09 at 17:20 -0700, Matt Spaulding wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Sérgio Basto > wrote: > > > check "Valid from 27-05-2012 23:17:21 to 23-11-2012 22:17:21" > and see if > isn't out-of-date > Certificate says it's valid not

Re: Unable to login to Koji website

On 07/09/2012 08:20 PM, Matt Spaulding wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Sérgio Basto > wrote: > > > check "Valid from 27-05-2012 23 :17:21 to > 23-11-2012 22:17:21" and see if > isn't out-of-date > > > Certificate says it's valid not before (

Re: Unable to login to Koji website

I heard that there was a DNS problem that was to affect a relatively significant number of people today On Jul 9, 2012 5:20 PM, "Matt Spaulding" wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > >> >> check "Valid from 27-05-2012 23:17:21 to 23-11-2012 22:17:21" and see if >> is

Re: Unable to login to Koji website

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > check "Valid from 27-05-2012 23:17:21 to 23-11-2012 22:17:21" and see if > isn't out-of-date > > > Certificate says it's valid not before (6/9/12 4:29:19 GMT) and not after (12/6/12 4:29:19 GMT), so I think it should be okay. I've attempte

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

You need to get the permission of everyone who contributed code to the GPL'd codebase, to convert to the BSD license. Not sure I can comment on translations. It's far easier to convert from BSD to GPL, specifically because the BSD is so permissive. One theoretically supposes somebody might have

Re: Unable to login to Koji website

On Seg, 2012-07-09 at 14:17 -0700, Matt Spaulding wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm having trouble logging into the Koji website. > > > I ran "fedora-packager-setup" on the command line and generated my > certs, including the browser cert for Firefox. I then followed the > instructions on the wiki to impo

Re: Proposal: allow *-static as multilib

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:13:29 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837901 > > > > has requested boost static libraries be shipped as multilib so that they > > can be used with "gcc -m32". > > > > We historically haven't done this for

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:30:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, > >> > don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of > >> > it, > > I don't think this is tr

Re: Proposal: allow *-static as multilib

Bill Nottingham wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837901 > > has requested boost static libraries be shipped as multilib so that they > can be used with "gcc -m32". > > We historically haven't done this for anything besides glibc & libstdc++, > but there's nothing technically

Re: upcoming libdb/db4/compat-db reorganization

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:51:09 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Transaction Check Error: > >file /usr/include/db.h conflicts between attempted installs of > > db4-devel-4.8.30-10.fc18.x86_64 and libdb-devel-5.3.15-3.fc18.x86_64 > >file /usr/include/db_185.h conflicts between attempted insta

Unable to login to Koji website

Hi, I'm having trouble logging into the Koji website. I ran "fedora-packager-setup" on the command line and generated my certs, including the browser cert for Firefox. I then followed the instructions on the wiki to import the cert into my browser. When clicking "login" on Koji it asks if I woul

Re: upcoming libdb/db4/compat-db reorganization

On 06/13/2012 09:44 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 05/04/2012 12:23 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:24:17 +0100, PR (Peter) wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Joe Orton wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:21:36PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: So the plan is: 1) remove 4.5,

Proposal: allow *-static as multilib

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837901 has requested boost static libraries be shipped as multilib so that they can be used with "gcc -m32". We historically haven't done this for anything besides glibc & libstdc++, but there's nothing technically preventing us from changing the policy

[Bug 838700] New: please update to new upstream version

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838700 Bug ID: 838700 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: low Version: 17 Priority: unspecified CC: perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org, rob...@marcanoonl

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:52:23 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:47:40PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Without proper attribution, e.g. in a commit message [of the merge done by > > a _different_ person] or in the preamble or inline, without a contributor > > explicit

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

* Bill Nottingham [07/07/2012 07:25] : > > Removing: selenium-remote-control > perl-Alien-SeleniumRC requires selenium-server = 1.0.3-8.20100318svn.fc15 FYI, I'll be retiring perl-Alien-SeleniumRC unless someone steps up to maintain selenium-server. Emmanuel -- devel mailing list devel@lists

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:18:59AM -0400, Brett Lentz wrote: > On 09/07/12 08:40 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:54:38 +0200 > >Matej Cepl wrote: > > > >>On 06/07/12 22:55, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >>> Package html401-dtds (orphan) > >>> comaintained by: gnat > >> > >>Does it

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:36:25 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > It's certainly possible for contributions to be so minor that they gain > no copyright. I _do_ _not_ _know_ about what level of contributions we talk to. Whether they have been one-line fixes of bugs or typos, dozens of lines, or even e

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:47:40PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Without proper attribution, e.g. in a commit message [of the merge done by > a _different_ person] or in the preamble or inline, without a contributor > explicitly requesting to be credited _anywhere at all_, how to keep track > o

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:21:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:17:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, > > don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, > > I don't thi

[Bug 838679] perl-Plack: EL-6 build

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679 --- Comment #1 from Jose Pedro Oliveira --- Problems: * system perl is too old for certain packages RHEL6 ships with perl 5.10.1 * The core perl module Test::More is definitely too old; this is also a core RHEL package (perl-Test-Sim

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, > don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, This is not true, and it's the point I was responding to correct. (I consulted an attorney

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, >> > don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, > I don't think this is true. Agreed. It is my opinion that this is not the case, assuming that th

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 16:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Removing: raptor > flickcurl requires libraptor.so.1 > flickcurl requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 > flickcurl-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 > flickcurl-devel requires pkgconfig(raptor) = 1.4.21 > l

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:17:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, > don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, I don't think this is true. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel m

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:17:09 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > For a point of accuracy— Or not. ;-) > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Have you had your name and a copyright statement in any source file? > > To highlight that you've been the [primary] author of that fil

[Bug 838679] New: perl-Plack: EL-6 build

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679 Bug ID: 838679 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: el6 Priority: unspecified CC: j...@di.uminho.pt, perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-07-09)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-07-09) === Meeting started by t8m at 17:02:00 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-07-09/fedora-meeting.2012-07-09-17.02.log.html . Meeting summary

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > That someone's name wasn't listed in the right places may _explain_ their > non-inclusion in a copyright change discussion That seems to be what is being stated. > Perhaps his contributions were too insignificant to earn copyright > covera

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

For a point of accuracy— On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Have you had your name and a copyright statement in any source file? > To highlight that you've been the [primary] author of that file? If not, > you're not a full/official author to have a stake in the licensing

[perl-Net-Twitter] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit 28660784f99737241bf0b7034c4ce62fe35c9a64 Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 18:14:59 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perl-Net-Twitter.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Net-Twitter.spec b/perl-Net-Twitter.spec index 1cbde16..73012

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:10:48 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote: > > As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD > > license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still > > under other licenses, however. > > How could they have changed the license without askin

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:40:23AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:54:38 +0200 > Matej Cepl wrote: > > > On 06/07/12 22:55, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Package html401-dtds (orphan) > > > comaintained by: gnat > > > > Does it mean, we won't have HTML 4.01 DTDs packaged in F

[perltidy] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit a1e6f836f5cfd382fc59d0574c83f74e2e934b26 Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 17:28:56 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perltidy.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perltidy.spec b/perltidy.spec index eeaa267..c78760a 100644 --- a/perltidy

[perl-Devel-Hide] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit b9a7b9e60518fb320ec8c2266751c47405725507 Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 17:22:52 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perl-Devel-Hide.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Devel-Hide.spec b/perl-Devel-Hide.spec index 182b37a..4b7404e

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On 09/07/12 08:40 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:54:38 +0200 Matej Cepl wrote: On 06/07/12 22:55, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Package html401-dtds (orphan) >comaintained by: gnat Does it mean, we won't have HTML 4.01 DTDs packaged in Fedora? That sounds bad. Also, how can o

[perl-smartmatch] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit 97c4280543fc151eaa31f97cae2dbbfb4b9f0807 Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 17:01:03 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perl-smartmatch.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-smartmatch.spec b/perl-smartmatch.spec index 41f99b5..f96a777

[perlbrew] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit 589dc4af28f0573b1fcccf8e0248351b2cb5177f Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 17:01:04 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perlbrew.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perlbrew.spec b/perlbrew.spec index bb1ace0..b8571ba 100644 --- a/perlbrew

[perl-Math-Pari] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit 746eecb45c18f800d1c2c7ef06becbd9b19aab93 Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 17:01:04 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perl-Math-Pari.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Math-Pari.spec b/perl-Math-Pari.spec index 52f4f02..7bcb6a5 100

[perl-No-Worries] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit 3e887d7b98d4fa55665aa8d9c02b64144b17d859 Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 17:01:03 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perl-No-Worries.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-No-Worries.spec b/perl-No-Worries.spec index 3034467..8142c89

[perl-BerkeleyDB] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit b29720721845eb52c2259843eaa4f75d94f683ee Author: Petr Písař Date: Mon Jul 9 17:01:04 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perl-BerkeleyDB.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-BerkeleyDB.spec b/perl-BerkeleyDB.spec index ee2e4b2..992d09b

Re: dracut-20-51 - Heads up

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > Added an automatic test in the dracut testsuite, so that this never happens > again.. Sorry for the inconvenience. Yes, rawhide sometimes eats babies. > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:54:38 +0200 Matej Cepl wrote: > On 06/07/12 22:55, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Package html401-dtds (orphan) > > comaintained by: gnat > > Does it mean, we won't have HTML 4.01 DTDs packaged in Fedora? That > sounds bad. Also, how can orphan be comaintained? Won't coma

Re: dracut-20-51 - Heads up

Added an automatic test in the dracut testsuite, so that this never happens again.. Sorry for the inconvenience. Yes, rawhide sometimes eats babies. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: gutenprint update in rawhide, soname bump

This soname bump has been an upstream error. They just released 5.2.9 to fix this. From changelog: * Changes from 5.2.8 1) This release fixes an inappropriate change to the internal library version number (.soname or equivalent) made in 5.2.8. All distributors should immediately app

Re: dracut-20-51 - Heads up

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > Am 09.07.2012 09:44, schrieb Harald Hoyer: > > Do not install dracut-020-51! > > > > Sorry for those, who have been bitten by dracut-020-51. Instead of > installing to > > the /var/tmp/initramfs.* directory, it installed in your real root. > >

Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On 2012-07-05, Michael Schwendt wrote: > As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD > license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still > under other licenses, however. How could they have changed the license without asking contributors? I have periodi

Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2012-07-09)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 17:00UTC (1:00pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = #topic #861 Cleanup of maintainers with bugzill

Re: dracut-20-51 - Heads up

Am 09.07.2012 09:44, schrieb Harald Hoyer: > Do not install dracut-020-51! > > Sorry for those, who have been bitten by dracut-020-51. Instead of installing > to > the /var/tmp/initramfs.* directory, it installed in your real root. > > To remove most (if not all) of the files, it has installed,

Re: dracut-20-51 - Heads up

Am 09.07.2012 10:43, schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: >> Do not install dracut-020-51! >> >> Sorry for those, who have been bitten by dracut-020-51. Instead of >> installing to >> the /var/tmp/initramfs.* directory, it installed in your re

Re: Maintainers with bugzilla issues. (Please read and help contact) (last call)

Dne 6.7.2012 20:32, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): mcpierce 'Darryl L. Pierce' pinged Vit -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: dracut-20-51 - Heads up

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: > Do not install dracut-020-51! > > Sorry for those, who have been bitten by dracut-020-51. Instead of installing > to > the /var/tmp/initramfs.* directory, it installed in your real root. Is there an automated regression test in drac

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18

On 06/07/12 22:55, Bill Nottingham wrote: Package html401-dtds (orphan) comaintained by: gnat Does it mean, we won't have HTML 4.01 DTDs packaged in Fedora? That sounds bad. Also, how can orphan be comaintained? Won't comaintainer be automatically elevated to a maintainer? Matěj --

dracut-20-51 - Heads up

Do not install dracut-020-51! Sorry for those, who have been bitten by dracut-020-51. Instead of installing to the /var/tmp/initramfs.* directory, it installed in your real root. To remove most (if not all) of the files, it has installed, do the following: # rm /.bash_history # rm /dracut-state.

Re: Maintainers with bugzilla issues. (Please read and help contact) (last call)

2012/7/6 Kevin Fenzi : > If anyone knows any way to contact the following people, please do so > and ask them to resolve this issue or ask for help from > ad...@fedoraproject.org to do so. > > fas name / real-name (if public) / email: > > aleksey2005 'Popkov Aleksey' Contacted him. He is reinst