Re: Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

On 09 Aug 2003 05:11:39 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ifupdown surely looks bad. Shouldn't someone else take over the package then? Greetings Marc, not feeling fit to take the package, but seriously thinking about a fork -- -- !! No

Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:39:52 +0100, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. ppp *was* unmaintained, for a long period of time. When exactly is a package (take ifupdown for

Re: Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:25:21PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:39:52 +0100, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. ppp *was* unmaintained, for a long

Re: Unmaintained Packages (was: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas)

Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:39:52 +0100, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. ppp *was* unmaintained, for a long period of time. When