Hi, On 22.08.2012 09:01, B.Thomas wrote: > > Hello, > > sorry at the moment i am really busy because of work and private > things. >
No problem. > Further in the feature i planed to create a c++ fork of mediathekview > (put it right, i am certainly no fan of java). If it goes well i will > public and maintain that instead ;) I am also not a great fan of Java, however i think we should support MediathekView because it makes searching for media content easier, at least until some better alternatives will arise in the future. :) > So you are completely right, someone else should take responsibility > as Maintainer of MediathekView for Debian/Ubuntu. My Job was only to > bring it to the debian world :) Yeah, that's the reason why i discovered MediathekView in the first place. :) I have prepared two different versions of MediathekView and i want to shoulder the responsibility. If you are no longer interested in maintaining MediathekView i would like to ask you to "transfer" your rights by sending a short notice to this bug report that you intend to give up maintainership on MediathekView. Then i could simply talk with Christoph about the next steps. Christoph, you can download the source packages here: dget -x ftp://46.182.19.209/debian/mediathekview/mediathekview_2.6.1-1.dsc dget -x ftp://46.182.19.209/debian/mediathekview/mediathekview_3.0.0-1.dsc I propose the following: 1. If you are satisfied with MediathekView 2.6.1, it should be uploaded to Unstable because it is more likely to be accepted by the Release Team. I will then file an "unblock" bug report for Testing. 2. If the package is accepted, then we should upload 3.0.0 to Experimental in case a new issue arises with 2.6.1. 3. If 2.6.1 is rejected by the Release Team i suggest to remove 2.4 immediately from Testing and to upload 3.0.0 to Unstable. What do you think? Regards Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
