[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: looking for the autogen's maintainer called James R. Van Zandt <jrv@vanzandt.mv.com>

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?

Perhaps the package could use some work, but the maintainer hardly seems

[1] "makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes data
    loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts
    of users who use the package"

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: