2012/2/2 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>> wrote:
>>> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack
>>> of maintainer. However, their
On 02/03/2012 03:10 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack
of maintainer. However, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
>> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack
>> of maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
>> maintainer-needed@g.
On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack of
> maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
> searching for a new maintainer.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/02/2012 10:56 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack of
> maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack of
maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
searching for a new maintainer. (The last being mask and
