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

Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow 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.
> Package list follows.
> MfG
>         Goswin
> PS: Dear debain QA group, you own a few packages in the list and at
> least one isn't shown as orphaned.
> gspy 

	This one is a case of being only for i386 so I don't even believe it
has a chance of making it into stable. Furthermore the release of 0.1.7
packaging is due to trying to find time to maintain the software itself
and try to fix the problems reported as upstream has not made any
release in over a year now (0.1.7 was released Nov 20, 2002) so I'm
trying to make the fixes myself along with other contributed patches. If
you have more time than me to deal with it, have at it as it'd give me
more time to prepare the settlement of my divorce. Otherwise I don't
feel this is a major hurdle for releasing Testing as stable, just remove
it and leave it in Unstable only.

	Jeremy T. Bouse

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: