Paul,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote:
> On 11-08-13 13:43, Robert J. Clay wrote:
>> I figure to reopen that bug but which would best for it to be? As
>> an ITP, because it isn't currently in unstable or testing? Or as an
>> ITA, because it had been packaged and is present in oldstable?
>
> As the package is currently not in Debian unstable, I would open a new
> ITP,
Rather just reopening the original RFA/O bug (603248) as an ITP?
> but please mention the fact that you consider reintroducing a
> package that was in Debian before
I would do that, regardless of how I labeled it...
> and, if applicable, mention how you fixed the issue that cause it to be
> removed
> (most of the time removal is not triggered by it being orphaned,
That I'll need to investigate. The removal bug (668080) says:
"RoQA; orphaned, unused, dead upstream". It had been orphaned around
a year at the time it was removed from unstable. I was using it at
the time; no clue whom else might have been...<g> And there are a
number of apps in Debian that don't have an active upstream...
I'll need to see what it takes to get it working for me again, then
see what's needed for a new package...
--
Robert J. Clay
rjc...@gmail.com
j...@rocasa.us
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/cal4bjxnae8nopdzruzqyugwlsg--cymvgscagdvw2ygczvn...@mail.gmail.com
