* Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050829 06:52]: > Depends on whether you consider elm or elm-ME to be real elm, I suppose. > In less than a minute of Google-ing, I found freshmeat.net's page for > elm-ME with a release date of 14 July 2005, and the actual elm homepage > with a release in 2004. > > Debian *was* packaging elm-ME... I'm not quite sure when it was dropped, > but it was still in the archive in 2002.
Taking a look at http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt, I found the following: ========================================================================= [Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:24:27 -0500] [ftpmaster: James Troup] Removed the following packages from unstable: elm-me+ | 2.4pl25ME+100-2 | source, alpha, arm, hppa, hurd-i386, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc Closed bugs: 141971 ------------------- Reason ------------------- RoQA; orphaned for almost 2 years, quite inactive upsteam, other MUAs (e.g. mutt) provide more functionality ---------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Is that what you are talking about? I never used elm myself, and I am confused by elm / elm-me / elm-me+. If you think it's worth the efford and the elm-me{+} development is active again, than go ahead, fill an RFP or do the work yourself. Yours sincerely, Alexander -- http://learn.to/quote/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature