Re: looking for the autogen's maintainer called James R. Van Zandt <jrv@vanzandt.mv.com>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> Tamas SZERB <toma@rulez.org> wrote:
>
> [cc'ing to -devel and -private is a bit pointless, so choosing -devel;
> personal cc as requested]
>
> >Hello guys, I'm looking for the autogen package's maintainer because of
> >several reasons: bugs (mentioned in BTS), and because long
> >time ago there wasn't new package but the mainstream's version is VERY
> >newer long time ago.. (FYI, major version from 4 to 5 change)
> >
> >I wrote him a letter 2 weeks ago, if he cannot maintain the package, I'd
> >like continue his work, but there was no answer. I submitted an important
> >bug and he didn't answer yet, and I think these problems are SO SERIOUS
> >because the package so obsolete and buggy.
>
> There appear to be three open non-forwarded bugs, none very old. Your
> grave (not important) bug was submitted *yesterday*, which is not a lot
> of notice, and doesn't fit the definition of grave [1] anyway. Did you
> read bug #99470, where the maintainer had a conversation with a bug
> submitter and upstream about problems with autogen 5 (your bug, in fact,
> so I assume you didn't) less than a week ago?
So don't you think it is not important that a package wich is installed
you can't compile the newer one? Come on, i think that CAN be dangerous
(and please don't flame me, I asked one of my friend which severity of the
bug sould be submetted). Okay, I agree, I forget to follow the thread
about the same bug, but I bag your pardon, I saw only the problem a time
ago.
But the problem is the same: 20 days old bug (yes, the options.h in
/usr/include), and seems, the owner of the package doesn't keep it
up-to-date. I wish I had a good, new, fresh autogen_5_ package, for that
reason I can make efforts.
I don't wanna flame, just watch my wishes.
--
VWOL
Tamas SZERB <toma@rulez.org>
GPG public key: http://alabama.rulez.org/~toma/gpgkey-toma.asc
Reply to: