Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-07 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > How do you plan to handle packages that are used by others? For example > your list contains dpkg-scriptlibs in the list of packages that should > be moved to orphanded, but that will have the nice side effect of breaking > all t

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > Hi, Hi Marcelo, >... > Regarding the severity of the ftp.debian.org bug: important. > Rationale: in the general case, packages that managed to get to this > state are non-interesting (otherwise they would have been adopted > already). That me

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Michael Meskes
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:15:42AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > | The follwing packages need a new maintainer: > | ... > | mpsql (68054), 33 days old I'm sorry, but I don't have the original mail anymore. But I thought it said the packages including mpsql will be moved to project/orphane

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi, >> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:55:29AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > please do close bug #68054 if the package is no longer up for ^^ > > adoption. The number after th

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Michael Meskes
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:55:29AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > please do close bug #68054 if the package is no longer up for > adoption. The number after the package name is the bug number on It is up for adoption but this is not the same as orphaned by any means. > ... > As to

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
>> Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > mpsql (68054), 33 days old > > How on earth did this make it onto your list. I cannot remeber orphaning it > at all. please do close bug #68054 if the package is no l

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Michael Meskes
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > mpsql (68054), 33 days old How on earth did this make it onto your list. I cannot remeber orphaning it at all. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread H. S. Teoh
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:56:59AM +0200, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > The follwing packages need a new maintainer: > ... > > mctools-lite (69638), 12 days old > ... > > rosegarden (68189), 33 days old > ... > > My s

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Enrique Robledo Arnuncio
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > The follwing packages need a new maintainer: ... > mctools-lite (69638), 12 days old ... > rosegarden (68189), 33 days old ... My sponsor (Javier Fernandez-Sanguino) is checking both packages, and we hope they will be uploa

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-04 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > * Every day a script will run thru the list of packages marked as >"Orphaned". For every package (< important) which has been >orphaned longer than 28 days, a bug will be submitted against >ftp.debian.org requesting the package to be moved to >

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-03 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
>> William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > hugs (68186), 33 days old > > hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old > > I was under the impression that I was taking care of these two Package: hugs Maintainer: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Package: hugs-doc Maintai

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-03 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On 2903T125642-0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > The follwing packages need a new maintainer: > > hugs (68186), 33 days old > > hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old > > I was under the impression that I was taking c

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-03 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > The follwing packages need a new maintainer: > hugs (68186), 33 days old > hugs-doc (68187), 33 days old I was under the impression that I was taking care of these two (although I haven't done much with them. Tony M

Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-03 Thread David Starner
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > Regarding the severity of the ftp.debian.org bug: important. > Rationale: in the general case, packages that managed to get to this > state are non-interesting (otherwise they would have been adopted > already). That means

RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned

2000-09-03 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi, In my never ending quest to get flamed over the WNPP, the next phase is moving orphaned packages to project/orphaned. I intend to generate weekly reports straight out of the WNPP information contained on the BTS and mail them to debian-devel-announce. The attached file is the informatio