Re: why was um-pppd removed?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:57:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:45:34PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >
> > It was up for adoption for about a year, or maybe more. Neal promised he
> > would adopt it, he didn't. There were no NMUs, despite the fact that
> > um-pppd didn't build from source. I considered that lack of interest.
>
> that just means it should be orphaned, not that it should be removed from
> the archive. A package shouldn't be removed from debian unless we don't
> have any expectation to get it fixed.
Just reupload it then. The QA-team cannot use ESP to find out which
totally unmaintained, buggy, FTBFS packages should be kept or not.
Dunno if filing a whishlist bug like 'Please don't remove, this will be
fixed eventually and we need it' might help.
Michael
Reply to: