Bug#175312: RFA: basilix
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 10:55:35PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-01-04 21:13]: > > If the package has as many problems as you say it does, why be so > > generous? Why not file against ftp.debian.org directly, requesting its > > removal from the archive? As you say, Debian doesn't need hundreds of > > webmail programs. > > FWIW, the proper way would be to reassign this bug to "ftp.debian.org" > and tetitle it to something like "Please remove basilix". lots of people ask me, why there isnt any new version, Maybe upstream thought, i redesign his software, while he`s sitting in a bar. My answer was, do nothing more for him. I think, i was enough patient, if somebody feel to be Mr. Basilix and his livejob is, talking monologes, to upstream, he can try it. Also possible he filter my mail :) I know also, in his contry he has a hard time and a kind of their national nature, do once a time something and than "crop the fruits" for the rest of his live, maybe thats possible in his county, but i`ll not support this. As i said, maybe somebody other :) This is a public list, i didnt used the word starting with a and ends with e. Cheers amu
Bug#175312: RFA: basilix
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-01-04 21:13]: > If the package has as many problems as you say it does, why be so > generous? Why not file against ftp.debian.org directly, requesting its > removal from the archive? As you say, Debian doesn't need hundreds of > webmail programs. FWIW, the proper way would be to reassign this bug to "ftp.debian.org" and tetitle it to something like "Please remove basilix". -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#175312: RFA: basilix
Hi Andreas, On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Andreas Mueller wrote: > Upstream ignored me since 2 years, he never implemented my fixes > His old fashioned programming-type is out of date. IF theres a new > upstreamversion i have to rewrite it. The only reason for me > to make a deb was his wap support, he dropped this also, so it makes > no sense to keep hundrets webmailprogramm on ftp. > http://www.basilix.org looks also unmaintained. since 14.1.2002, > no changes there. If somebody want adopt this, newer fixed versions and > packages are under p.d.o/~amu/basilix/ available. > If nobody want adopt it, i suggest remove the package after a period > of 3 month. If the package has as many problems as you say it does, why be so generous? Why not file against ftp.debian.org directly, requesting its removal from the archive? As you say, Debian doesn't need hundreds of webmail programs. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgptrRSF0zUQT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#175312: RFA: basilix
Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-01-04 Severity: normal Upstream ignored me since 2 years, he never implemented my fixes His old fashioned programming-type is out of date. IF theres a new upstreamversion i have to rewrite it. The only reason for me to make a deb was his wap support, he dropped this also, so it makes no sense to keep hundrets webmailprogramm on ftp. http://www.basilix.org looks also unmaintained. since 14.1.2002, no changes there. If somebody want adopt this, newer fixed versions and packages are under p.d.o/~amu/basilix/ available. If nobody want adopt it, i suggest remove the package after a period of 3 month. Cheers amu -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: powerpc Kernel: Linux tr.debian.net 2.4.20-ben1 #1 Thu Dec 19 20:49:19 CET 2002 ppc Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (ignored: LC_ALL set)
