On Saturday 28 July 2007, Ryan Hill wrote:
> But the point is upstream not
> maintaining something is not reason enough for removing it. Upstream
> not maintaining it and it being broken is. Upstream not maintaining it
> and it being an unwanted pain in the ass is also popular one.
all correct
-
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>
>> aiui, if there are no bugs the package goes to maintainer-wanted so a user
>> can pick it up for sunrise.
>
> Almost. Sunrise can only handle maintainer-needed packages; those that
> aren't in the tree yet.
Bah, I screwed that up. s/needed/wanted/ So
Steve Long wrote:
> aiui, if there are no bugs the package goes to maintainer-wanted so a user
> can pick it up for sunrise.
Almost. Sunrise can only handle maintainer-needed packages; those that
aren't in the tree yet.
--
dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
gento
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 22 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> > > # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
>> >
>> > in other words, you have no real reason for punting this package ?
>>
>> well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it to version 2
>> from upstream is
