This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, December 9, 2003.
** PACKAGE PROPOSERS ** Please verify these fields **
Package: The name and version of the package as it will appear in setup.
Proposal: Files that will be uploaded to sources.redhat.com unmodified.
HOLD-UPS: What you need to
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:00:01PM -, Daniel Reed wrote:
>Package: otcl 1.0.9-1 [2003-10-29]
>Description: OTcl, short for MIT Object Tcl. (main package)
> Proposer: Harold L Hunt II
> Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/otcl/otcl-1.
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:00:01PM -, Daniel Reed wrote:
> Package: ploticus 2.11-1 [2003-09-15]
+1 vote
> Package: GraphicsMagick 1.0.4-1 [2003-12-07]
Just in case this is not vote-exempt: +1 vote
rlc
PS: how the checklist for good-to-go reviews coming along?
--
Eschew obfuscation.
On 2003-12-10T01:42-0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
) On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:00:01PM -, Daniel Reed wrote:
) >Package: otcl 1.0.9-1 [2003-10-29]
) This package is not, AFAICT, vote exempt. It's not an X package which
) means that it gets the same treatment as any other package.
)
) >Packa
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Daniel Reed wrote:
> This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, December 9, 2003.
>
> [snip]
> Package: dx 4.3.2-1 [2003-12-05]
> [snip]
> Aye votes: Dr. Volker Zell [1/3]
> Status: Package available.
>HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). Unresolved p
On 2003-12-09T12:08-0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
) On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Daniel Reed wrote:
) > Package: GraphicsMagick 1.0.4-1 [2003-12-07]
) > [snip]
) > Status: Vote-exempt. Package available.
) >HOLD-UPS: No "good to go" review.
) IIRC, Harold indicated that GraphicsMagick is offered
Sounds reasonable to me.
Harold
Daniel Reed wrote:
On 2003-12-09T12:08-0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
) On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Daniel Reed wrote:
) > Package: GraphicsMagick 1.0.4-1 [2003-12-07]
) > [snip]
) > Status: Vote-exempt. Package available.
) >HOLD-UPS: No "good to go" review.
)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>Sounds reasonable to me.
Ditto.
Thanks to Chuck and Harold for doing the research on this one, too. It's
rather an unusual case.
cgf
