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

Re: GDM 2.4 in sid

[Please CC me.]

I apologize for not seeing that, there were no objections directly sent 
to the ITP bug, and when I checked the debian-devel archives at the time 
there were no objections either. I did not want to NMU or adopt the 
existing gdm package, as the maintainer still seemed to be active, just 
somewhat ignoring the new gdm releases. I'll go ahead and file an ITA 
then wait a week and a half for responses, but such a thing doesn't 
seem to be documented on the WNPP pages or the developers' reference.

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 04:04:29PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote:
> Are you sure ?
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01391.html
> You should replace RFA by ITA
> We have decided to no upload GNOME 2 packages with the 2 prefix.
> I'll ask ftpadmins to remove this package. If you really want to
> package this version do an ITA.
> Packaging an gdm package with a 2 prefix will confuse users, and break
> to woody upgrade.

Reply to: