On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 22:39 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I need your advice for bug #427697: Although the bug has been open a while, the severity was only increased a few days ago. It seems hasty to look for a forced solution IMHO. > As far as #427697 is concerned, there are two obvious solutions: > > 1) Use a group that exists. The problems are: > - I am too inexperienced to pick one that makes sense, > - I know nothing about python, in which sbackup is programmed, In which case, you should not even entertain ideas of hijacks. > - I am only interested in sbackup as a user, not as a DD, and I would > rather swich to an alternative if it were abandonned. > > I use sbackup at work, so I definitely would consider migrating to > something else would the bug be rotting longer. But it would not help > the other persons lured to use an unmaintained package, so I hope that > something can be done. unmaintained? On what grounds? It's been three days since the severity was bumped. Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:57:39 +0900 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=427697#25 > The best would of course that the maintainer himself would show some > sign of activity. Maybe he has a mail configuration problem ? and maybe he's just busy, like many of us. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part