On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> How do you plan to handle packages that are used by others? For example
> your list contains dpkg-scriptlibs in the list of packages that should
> be moved to orphanded, but that will have the nice side effect of breaking
> all t
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Marcelo,
>...
> Regarding the severity of the ftp.debian.org bug: important.
> Rationale: in the general case, packages that managed to get to this
> state are non-interesting (otherwise they would have been adopted
> already). That me
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:15:42AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> | The follwing packages need a new maintainer:
> | ...
> | mpsql (68054), 33 days old
I'm sorry, but I don't have the original mail anymore. But I thought it said
the packages including mpsql will be moved to project/orphane
Hi,
>> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:55:29AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > please do close bug #68054 if the package is no longer up for
^^
> > adoption. The number after th
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:55:29AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> please do close bug #68054 if the package is no longer up for
> adoption. The number after the package name is the bug number on
It is up for adoption but this is not the same as orphaned by any means.
> ...
> As to
>> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > mpsql (68054), 33 days old
>
> How on earth did this make it onto your list. I cannot remeber orphaning it
> at all.
please do close bug #68054 if the package is no l
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> mpsql (68054), 33 days old
How on earth did this make it onto your list. I cannot remeber orphaning it
at all.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:56:59AM +0200, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > The follwing packages need a new maintainer:
> ...
> > mctools-lite (69638), 12 days old
> ...
> > rosegarden (68189), 33 days old
> ...
>
> My s
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> The follwing packages need a new maintainer:
...
> mctools-lite (69638), 12 days old
...
> rosegarden (68189), 33 days old
...
My sponsor (Javier Fernandez-Sanguino) is checking both packages, and
we hope they will be uploa
Previously Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> * Every day a script will run thru the list of packages marked as
>"Orphaned". For every package (< important) which has been
>orphaned longer than 28 days, a bug will be submitted against
>ftp.debian.org requesting the package to be moved to
>
>> William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > hugs (68186), 33 days old
> > hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old
>
> I was under the impression that I was taking care of these two
Package: hugs
Maintainer: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package: hugs-doc
Maintai
On 2903T125642-0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > The follwing packages need a new maintainer:
> > hugs (68186), 33 days old
> > hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old
>
> I was under the impression that I was taking c
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> The follwing packages need a new maintainer:
> hugs (68186), 33 days old
> hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old
I was under the impression that I was taking care of these two
(although I haven't done much with them. Tony M
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Regarding the severity of the ftp.debian.org bug: important.
> Rationale: in the general case, packages that managed to get to this
> state are non-interesting (otherwise they would have been adopted
> already). That means
14 matches
Mail list logo
