tags 549736 + pending thanks Nikolaus, good to hear from you again after such a long time, and thanks for the patch.
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:27:10PM +0200, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > Yes. This one is easy. There has been a similar report for an XFS On that basis, indeed it's easy to fix. (I don't understand though the requirement for the mbox's mtime to be preserved after archival, but that's part of another discussion) > Speaking as upstream: as development has stalled for quite some time > now, a short note about that may be in order. I'm quite willing to dust > off archivemail development; there is quite a lot of work that went into > the project which is still not published, and it would be sad if that > was all lost. Unfortunately, it will require some very unpleasant > cleanup work to get my git repo in a state where it can be pushed to an > official repo. Still, I am hoping to bring that further along, and > maybe to do a maintenance release in the near future (which should be > much easier to do). I'm happy to read this, but you wrote similar things quite a while ago without any effect. I hope this time will be different, and I take this opportunity to reiterate my suggestion to join me as a co-maintainer of the debian package. >From debian's perspective, more urgent than a new upstream release are a port to python 2.6 (and eventually 3.1), and that non-debian specific patches are adopted upstream. http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/archivemail/0.7.2-6 How about setting up a git repo with version 0.7.2 + debian patches? I leave it up to you whether you want me to create one, or make public your repo and make a branch in it. -- debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/serzan/wnpp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
