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

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: