Hi there! Please Cc: me if you do remove pkg-bacula-devel@ from the loop. On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:04:17 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> [2011-08-10 08:12:10 CEST]: >> I'm also not completely sure whether the team members back then when >> John orphaned said they would like to provide the backport themself - >> that's why I hesitated at first, which brings me back to square one: >> Have you been in contact with them? Because then they could have told >> you about these things ... > > Last paragraph of: > <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=52;att=0;bug=612296> > > gismo, does this still hold? It would be perfect if you could make > your suggestion happen!! It still holds, the problem is time constraints, which is also the reason why Jan did all the work until now and I still use the old 5.0.2 version on my stable production systems (squeeze and Windows machines). > Pietro, it looks like we are going to reject your backport. We expect > maintainers of backports to be experienced packagers because users of > the backports service install them in a stable environment and there are > sometimes tricky pitfalls that regular package maintainers have a > feeling about but people not maintaining any package at all could easily > get confused about. Pietro, feel free to join the pkg-bacula team to get acquainted with the process. I think the backports admins will have no problems if one of the core maintainers will supervise your backport (and thus will take all the shame in case of problems...). <http://pkg-bacula.alioth.debian.org/> Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgpvPlqp4wHf8.pgp
Description: PGP signature