185 Packages that look orphaned
On Jan 27, Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
> are not in testing are:
>
> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)
>
> Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.
>
> If you maintain one of thses packages then tell me (including the
> names of packages you maintain) during the next week. If you are using
> one of these packages and could maintain (or NMU some fixes) you
> should contact the maintainer and me to work things out. If I hear
> nothing about a package soon I will start with the oldest and do a few
> packages every day.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3270
>
> agrep allegro4 amiwm aplus-fsf argouml avifile axe
^^^^^^^^^
Don't orphan aplus-fsf. It hasn't gone in because it depends on xemacs21,
which has an m68k bug that is preventing it from going in. I provided the
patch to fix a different RC bug (201657).
--
Neil Roeth
Reply to: