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
