reopen 71107
retitle 71107 Explorer is unmaintained and should be removed
thanks
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 03:27:00AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> > > It's orphaned. And has been for about 7 months. The "maintainer"
> > > should be debian-qa, but it has not been reset to that.
> >
> > ...tha
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:01:00AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > Oh, yeah.
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/68274
> >
> > It's orphaned. And has been for about 7 months. The "maintainer"
> > should be debian-qa, but it has not been reset to that.
>
> ...that would explain it. :)
righ
> > The maintainer may be unaware of our conversation, (god knows why)
> > and may be working on an upload as we speak. IMO, its the same
> > philosophy as doing a NMU.
>
> Oh, yeah.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/68274
>
> It's orphaned. And has been for about 7 months. The "maintainer"
>
>> Michael Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The maintainer may be unaware of our conversation, (god knows why)
> and may be working on an upload as we speak. IMO, its the same
> philosophy as doing a NMU.
Oh, yeah.
http://bugs.debian.org/68274
It's orphaned. And has been for about 7
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 06:39:36PM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
>
> As it is now the current package does not work, cannot be installed due
> to dependencies, and it's not part of main. The last few uploads have
> been done as NMU's...
that in itself could suggest that it could be removed. but
> > I would also recommend removing explorer as it depends on a non-existant
> > package (qt1g and not libqt1g) and therefore isn't installable.
>
> done.
>
> I cannot remove explorer unless the maintainer asks. besides, it should be
> recompilable with qt2.2.
>
ok...the source we (Debian) hav
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't think explorer is sufficient justification to keep qt1 in woody.
I wasn't implying it was. I was just saying it needs to be fixed, or
removed.
--
Brian M. Almeida
Linux Systems Engineer | http://www.winstar.com | [EMAIL PROT
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:35:44AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
> 'explorer' also depends on it (using the old qt1g package name)
Explorer also has nine bugs, some important, six over two years old.
Note especially:
#29053: package explorer depends on obsolete library libstdc++2.8 (1y, 308d)
#53
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:35:44AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:16:03AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I'd like to remove qt1 from woody. I only seem to find 1 package that
> > depends on it currently (tuxeyes) and due to the fact that it's non-fre
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:16:03AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'd like to remove qt1 from woody. I only seem to find 1 package that
> depends on it currently (tuxeyes) and due to the fact that it's non-free
> and qt2 is out with a gpl'd license and all, I think we should discou
Hey,
I'd like to remove qt1 from woody. I only seem to find 1 package that
depends on it currently (tuxeyes) and due to the fact that it's non-free
and qt2 is out with a gpl'd license and all, I think we should discourage it's
use just as Troll is.
Ivan
--
Ivan E. Moore II
11 matches
Mail list logo
