Re: GDM 2.4 in sid
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote:
> Ari Pollak <ari@debian.org> writes:
>
> > [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
>
> An ITA mean Intent To Adopt, and no the current gdm maintainer doesn't
> maintain this package. The current maintainer is may be active for
> its others Debian jobs (ftpadmin, mipsel buildd) but not for this
> package.
To adopt a package the current maintainer must ask for it to be adopted.
Package takeover attempts usually require consensus on debian-devel with the
maintatiner MIA. Ryan is however not MIA. He *is* actively maintaining gdm,
however he has made a concious decision not to upload a gdm 2.4 package to
unstable. It would be irresponsible and questionable for you to hijack the
package in this way.
If you insist on installing a temporary gdm package, the correct name should
be gdm2.4 as this correctly represents the version and is less ambiguous.
Hoever i expect the package would not be installed into the archive by the
ftpmasters.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob 'robster' Bradford
Founder: http://www.debianplanet.org/
Developer: http://www.debian.org/
Monkey with keyboard: http://www.robster.org.uk/
Reply to: