>> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is any package using functions of dpkg-perl or dpkg-python? If yes, I
> > think someone should take care of this packages and the bugs that are in
> > them. If not, could we move this packages from our distribution to
> > experimental until t
On 20001226T152221+0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> |malaga (210 days old)
>
> Has this package been dropped?
No.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> > we currently have a really huge list of packages that are orphaned and
> > so I looked at them to see if we can drop some of them. Here are some
> > suggestion and my comments. Any comment from you is appreciated:
> >...
> > |fnlib (104
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Christian,
> we currently have a really huge list of packages that are orphaned and
> so I looked at them to see if we can drop some of them. Here are some
> suggestion and my comments. Any comment from you is appreciated:
>...
> |fnlib (104 da
On 00-12-28 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Christian Kurz wrote:
> > |dpkg-scriptlib -- dpkg-perl and dpkg-python (142 days old)
> >
> > Is any package using functions of dpkg-perl or dpkg-python? If yes, I
> > think someone should take care of this packages and the bugs that are in
> > the
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 04:26:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> 195 days is a lot of time to have an important package orphaned. At 6 or
> so months of "orphaned-ness", if a maintainer is not found, one should and
> IMHO must look at the very real at that point possibility of going on
> without it
Previously Christian Kurz wrote:
> |dpkg-scriptlib -- dpkg-perl and dpkg-python (142 days old)
>
> Is any package using functions of dpkg-perl or dpkg-python? If yes, I
> think someone should take care of this packages and the bugs that are in
> them. If not, could we move this packages from our
195 days is a lot of time to have an important package orphaned. At 6 or
so months of "orphaned-ness", if a maintainer is not found, one should and
IMHO must look at the very real at that point possibility of going on
without it. If this necessitates further changes as in removal of an
entire ar
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, [iso-8859-1] Petr Čech wrote:
> > |mhash (235 days old)
> No. I'm not sure if gorgo orphaned it or not. php4 builds an extension with
he says, `i think i did... about the time when i orphaned php'
--
[-]
``And there are plenty of other innovative pieces of software such
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
>
> Hi,
> |mhash (235 days old)
>
> Has this package been dropped from unstable? If yes, can we close the
> wnpp-bug about it?
No. I'm not sure if gorgo orphaned it or not. php4 builds an extension with
this library. Dunno, how
In Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:42:49 +0100 Christian Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum
veritate scripsit :
> > silo (0.9.9-1) unstable; urgency=low
>
> > * New upstream
> > * Took over silo's packaging
>
> > -- Erick Kinnee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:54:23 -0500
>
> > Which I assumed mea
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 07:06:30PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC
> folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's
> utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the
> point in D
On 00-12-27 Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 06:59:16PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > >
> > > |silo (195 days old)
> > >
> > > Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's
> > > currently st
On 00-12-26 Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> >
> > |silo (195 days old)
> >
> > Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's
> > currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache
> > search silo.
> Yo
If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC
folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's
utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the
point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC
community
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 06:59:16PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> >
> > |silo (195 days old)
> >
> > Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's
> > currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which ap
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
>
> |silo (195 days old)
>
> Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's
> currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache
> search silo.
You can only remove this if you want sparc to be
In Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:22:21 +0100 Christian Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum
veritate scripsit :
> |silo (195 days old)
>
> Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's
> currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache
> search silo.
Wasn't this the only
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> |ppd-gs (1 year and 357 days old)
>
> Do we really need this package still for users of alladin ghostscript or
> is it not needed anymore?
Last time I asked for this to be removed, a few people said this was useful.
FWIW.
> |silo
Hi,
we currently have a really huge list of packages that are orphaned and
so I looked at them to see if we can drop some of them. Here are some
suggestion and my comments. Any comment from you is appreciated:
|ppd-gs (1 year and 357 days old)
Do we really need this package still for users of
20 matches
Mail list logo
