hmmm, thinking at it. my answer is not so right :( indeed the original maintainer issued an RFA so he was no required to change the Maintainer: field to Debian QA. his real fault was not looking for who might have adopted his package and issued an O: with another bug. of course if the new adopter had uploaded steadly the package with his name in the Maintainer: field nothing of the above would have happened. cheers :) On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:41:46PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:01:45PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > yes, you are very correct. > > > > what happened here is that the original maintainer issued [...] > > > thanks and sorry for the fuss > > cavok > > Thanks, cavok! You are perfectly right. > > I didn't know all that story. I just saw a couple of "I'm closing > this bug" messages, and thought that someone was going around closing > bugs at random. > > Sorry to have doubted you! Thanks again for the work keeping the > BTS clean. > > -Steve -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Attachment:
pgpb7099p5h_k.pgp
Description: PGP signature