* Martin Zobel-Helas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> i am not sure if i overlooked your answer to my last mail. Is there anything
> we
> can help on #232810? As we are going to freeze realy soon now (looks like both
> ends of the toolchain are fixed by now), i fear that openmosix will be
> dropped
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:00:17 +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote:
> I am also confident that the maintain will solve this issue in the near
> future, but I still fail to see a reason to keep the broken, policy
> violating version in sarge.
Reason: Removing the package involves work.
Work that d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How about http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt ?
> > Is this outdated? Serious question - I might not have noticed
> > a change here. Please help me out if I'm wrong.
>
> | Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
> | and wherever possib
* Tobias Stefan Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041022 21:30]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > some remarks from me on that issue:
> > - we don't enforce that data matches the DFSG for release of sarge
> We don't?
> Might be true, but then this is the first time I hear about this.
>
> How about http:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> some remarks from me on that issue:
> - we don't enforce that data matches the DFSG for release of sarge
We don't?
Might be true, but then this is the first time I hear about this.
How about http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt ?
Is this outdated? Serious quest
Hi,
* Tobias Stefan Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041022 12:50]:
> though stars is in the main section, it presently requires unpackaged
> data files (probably considered non-free) to work.
>
> See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=276467
>
> You'll find a request to lower the pr
Hi,
though stars is in the main section, it presently requires unpackaged
data files (probably considered non-free) to work.
See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=276467
You'll find a request to lower the priority of the bug report there,
but I think the purpose of the RC severi
Il ven, 2004-08-27 alle 08:52, Christian Perrier ha scritto:
> > What should/could be done to have this package hit sarge ?
>
> Give Stefan some help in maintaining it..:-)
I can help Stefan. I'm the listmaster of a mailing list service and we
use sympa on Debian stable. I'm not yet a DD but I m
Steve Langasek (2004-09-08 15:52:07 -0700) :
> This package was already removed from sarge following our discussion
> on IRC.
Oh. Sorry, bad timing then. But I did check the PTS before I sent
that email yesterday night, and it was still listed as present in
sarge.
My apologies for the wasted
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 08:32:33PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> I hope this post is appropriate here. I'd like to suggest (request,
> to be honest :-) that eagle-adsl be removed from testing. It's been
> replaced by eagle-usb, which has successfully completed its
> introduction to sid and migration
Hi,
I hope this post is appropriate here. I'd like to suggest (request,
to be honest :-) that eagle-adsl be removed from testing. It's been
replaced by eagle-usb, which has successfully completed its
introduction to sid and migration to sarge. I've submitted a bug
against ftp.debian.org (#26946
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Martin Zobel-Helas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > question about a removal from testing:
> > >
> > > openmosix
> > >
> > > It has longstanding RC bug (#232810). No direct reaction from maintainer.
> >
> > Actually, I was working on that al
> What should/could be done to have this package hit sarge ?
Give Stefan some help in maintaining it..:-)
sympa is a complicated package which probably needs a lot of work so I
guess that team maintenance would be welcomedStefan, what's your
opinion about this ?
Unfortunately, this should h
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:25:45PM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
i would like to suggest to remove sympa from testing. Looking in sympa-package
at the BSP on weekend showed me, that current upstream version is 4.1, current
Debian version is 3.4.4. Sympa in Debian has secu
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:25:45PM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote:
> > i would like to suggest to remove sympa from testing. Looking in
> > sympa-package
> > at the BSP on weekend showed me, that current upstream version is 4.1,
> > current
> > Debian version is 3.4.4. Sympa in Debian has security
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:09:21 +0200
Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i would like to suggest to remove sympa from testing. Looking in sympa-package
> at the BSP on weekend showed me, that current upstream version is 4.1, current
> Debian version is 3.4.4. Sympa in Debian has
Hi,
i would like to suggest to remove sympa from testing. Looking in sympa-package
at the BSP on weekend showed me, that current upstream version is 4.1, current
Debian version is 3.4.4. Sympa in Debian has security issues (#260508). As i
understand upstreams changelog, there have not only been th
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 02:56:15AM +0200, Ulrich Scholler wrote:
> we took a shot at this bug and found it to be a bottomless pit. This
> package features missing build depends, missing depends and typos in the
> rules file. In addition to that, it depends on packages that are buggy
> themselves.
Hi,
On Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 11:15:43 +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> >we took a shot at this bug and found it to be a bottomless pit. This
> >package features missing build depends, missing depends and typos in the
> >rules file. In addition to that, it depends on packages that are buggy
> >themselv
Ulrich et al,
Works for me. The release of sarge has come at a particularly ordinary
time for me (I am on vacation in db.d.o but unfortunately far from it in
reality) and am unable to tend to its problems.
It is however a useful package so I will have it fixed for the next
release (which hop
Hi,
we took a shot at this bug and found it to be a bottomless pit. This
package features missing build depends, missing depends and typos in the
rules file. In addition to that, it depends on packages that are buggy
themselves. We suggest this package to be removed from Sarge.
Regards,
uLI a
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Martin Zobel-Helas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > question about a removal from testing:
> >
> > openmosix
> >
> > It has longstanding RC bug (#232810). No direct reaction from maintainer.
>
> Actually, I was working on that already (well, that issue was fixed, I
> was t
RC
> bug, along w/ most of the other ones I think.
sorry for that. so i will withdraw my removal suggestion.
--
Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.helas.net or http://mhelas.blogspot.com
GPGKey-Fingerprint: 14744CACEF5CECFAE29E2CB17929AB90F7AC3AF0
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Martin Zobel-Helas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> question about a removal from testing:
>
> openmosix
>
> It has longstanding RC bug (#232810). No direct reaction from maintainer.
Actually, I was working on that already (well, that issue was fixed, I
was trying to fix the *other* bugs against i
Hi release-team,
question about a removal from testing:
openmosix
It has longstanding RC bug (#232810). No direct reaction from maintainer.
its rdepends:
openmosixview
libmos (provided by openmosix)
kernel-patch-openmosix (provided by openmosix)
openmosix-dev (provided by openmosix)
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 11:55:37AM +0200, Pierre Machard wrote:
> I suggest that we remove libflux0 from testing.
> No maintainer upload since 2001, RC bug related to old libtool,
> and it seems that a new software is available on fluxlib.org.
As this is a library package with no reverse-depend
Hi,
I suggest that we remove libflux0 from testing.
No maintainer upload since 2001, RC bug related to old libtool,
and it seems that a new software is available on fluxlib.org.
This software seems deprecated.
QA : it seems that the maintainer is MIA. Maybe we should orphaned this
package.
Ch
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:50:58AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> remove gwydion-dylan-sgml/0.1-2
> FTBFS bug, is the documentation for gwydion-dylan which is not in
> testing due to RC bugs.
Hinted.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatu
remove gwydion-dylan-sgml/0.1-2
FTBFS bug, is the documentation for gwydion-dylan which is not in
testing due to RC bugs.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
==> remove bookmarker/2.8.0-4
RC bug #238000, I offered to do a (sponsored) NMU, maintainer first accepted
it, afterwards he asked me not to do the NMU and suggested to remove the
package completely from the archives. However, no bug against
ftp.deb
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 04:54:11PM +0200, Martin Helas wrote:
> is it possible to remove netsaint-nrpe-plugin from testing?
> Reasons: has RC-bugs, maintainer is MIA and gave the package up for adoption
This package is only present in non-US (and only in unstable). Non-US
is effectively dead in
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:52:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> is it possible to remove gnome-jabber from testing?
> Reasons: orphaned (so this is ROM), has RC-bugs. For total removal,
> the bug is IMHO too fresh.
Hinted for removal.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature
Hi,
is it possible to remove netsaint-nrpe-plugin from testing?
Reasons: has RC-bugs, maintainer is MIA and gave the package up for adoption
Greetings from the Munich BSP,
Martin
--
Regards,| Debian GNU / / _ _ _ _ _ __ __
. | / /
Hi,
is it possible to remove gnome-jabber from testing?
Reasons: orphaned (so this is ROM), has RC-bugs. For total removal,
the bug is IMHO too fresh.
Thanks,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
34 matches
Mail list logo
