Sylvain Le Gall <gil...@debian.org> writes: > On 07-01-2009, Stéphane Glondu <st...@glondu.net> wrote: >>> 4. completely remove that broken package from the archive, no build-repends >>> are found, no harm done. This is my favourity one. >> >> Has someone any news from Mike Furr? The last mail from him on a Debian >> mailing-list dates back to Feb. 2008 with a signature suggesting that he >> was lacking time for Debian². Note that the Maintainer field of omake is >> set to "Mike Furr", and not the mailing-list, so that we don't receive >> directly any bug report related to it. Moreover, I don't understand why >> there is an additional -3 in the version number. BTW, there is also a >> new upstream version (but it is probably not the right time to import >> it...). >> >> I intend to have a deeper look at omake by the end of the week... with >> at least a migration to git, and switch of Maintainer to d-o-m (unless >> otherwise instructed). I will then give my opinion on point 4. >> > > For what is important, I totally agree with hijacking the package to > git/d-o-m. I think Mike Furr is MIA for now, just explain that we hijack > the package waiting mfurr to come back. > > I do however disagree with point 4. OMake is used by some people, like > Jane Street, so there is at least some user around. Unfortunately, I > don't have time/interest to fix the bug. Maybe an intermediate "just > remove for lenny" should be enough. > > Regards, > Sylvain Le Gall
On that note could we get the current omake into experimental? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org