On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 14:17, Eloy A. Paris wrote: > Sean, > > Thanks again for your unofficial packages - using them with no problems. > > BTW, why your gdm packages keep log files in /var/lib/gdm instead of > /var/log/gdm? Is this hard to change? The old gdm package in unstable > puts the log files in the correct location. You might want to take a > look at it to see how it does it. > That looks like a typo in the build scripts...will fix soon. > Cheers, > > Eloy.- > > Sean Harshbarger <harshbarger.13@osu.edu> writes: > > > Until the "true" maintainer decides on his plan of action on gdm we are > > stuck with the third party packages like mine. I have been activly > > keeping it up to date for the past few months. Now it is already preped > > for mainstream release as long as I have the go ahead to do it. If > > anything bugs are fixed in my version and will help the "real" release > > be good. I would recommend that we just use mine in the > > meantime...report problems to me, and ill fix them and release the > > unoffical versions. If the package is to be orphaned then I elect that I > > should adopt it since I have the experience and system already in place. > > > > Am Don, 2003-02-06 um 18.04 schrieb Christian Marillat: > > > Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org> writes: > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:09:48PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Actively ? The last upload has been done the 4 Apr 2002. The BTS page > > > > for gdm contains : > > > > > > > > 6 important bugs > > > > 31 normal bugs > > > > 2 minor bugs > > > > 17 whishlist bugs > > > > > > > None of which are RC. None of which give you a reason to hijack the package. > > > > > > GNOME 2 has been release 6 months ago, an we are still waiting for a new > > > gdm package. > > > > > > > The last change in the BTS has been done the 6 Apr 2002 for bug #141184 > > > > abd I don't see any reply to a bug since this date. > > > > > > > Maybe you use a different BTS than I do, but I see activity from at > > > > least October 2002, and January 2003. > > > > > > I've never received any reply to my bug #147637 filed 8 months ago... > > > > > > > Then, tell me how you call that ? > > > > > > > Why don't we stop worrying about what to call things (which benefits > > > > no one), and worry about RC FTBFS packages in the gnome2 dep chain. > > > > > > I'm not concerned by that. All my packages are clean and if a receive a > > > FTBFS bug I upload a new package within 2 days. > > > > > > > That benefits everyone. I've had some of those bugs (which are of RC > > > > severity) ignored for 3 months, with uploads of "new upstream > > > > release" happening in the meantime. > > > > > > I still don't see any good reason with the latest gdm isn't uploaded. > > > > > > Christian > > -- > > Sean Harshbarger > > > > http://harshy.homelinux.org - Personal Website > > http://coaster.sourceforge.net - Coaster - The Gnome CD Burner -- Sean Harshbarger http://harshy.homelinux.org - Personal Website http://coaster.sourceforge.net - Coaster - The Gnome CD Burner
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part