Re: RFS: gwibber

To: debian-mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: RFS: gwibber
From: Filip Chabik <debian@hadret.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:09:40 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 1246457380.5748.8.camel@dziobak>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 85c01b290906302043l6fb585adu642c40695f9c0784@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1246268294.16326.8.camel@dziobak> <85c01b290906290643i61659fadvf8c914faee7a553b@mail.gmail.com> <1246300218.1104.7.camel@dziobak> <85c01b290906292114o27508186m20ed1dd9fc5e39c2@mail.gmail.com> <1246358284.17246.18.camel@dziobak> <20090630111835.GA24871@piotro.eu> <1246384065.29916.16.camel@dziobak> <20090630190721.GB3685@piotro.eu> <[🔎] 85c01b290906302043l6fb585adu642c40695f9c0784@mail.gmail.com>

Dnia 2009-07-01, śro o godzinie 09:13 +0530, Kartik Mistry pisze:
> Heh :)
> 
> No issue if you steal him :P

Nobody wants me! ;(

Anyway, gwibber package is now far better, than it was. Firstly - many
thanks to Piotr for providing help with python-support - it was a very
good idea to drop off CDBS. There's only one lintian --pedantic warning,
which is:

no-upstream-changelog

I asked it before, will ask it again: do I have to make use of provided
link by Ryan Paul, or is it better idea to wait until they will make
something better?
There's still problem with that ITP bug - I wrote there that I'd like to
take off this bug, but nobody answer me. Do I have to wait or should I
make new ITP bug?

-- 
Filip Chabik <debian@hadret.com>

Reply to:

References:
- Re: RFS: gwibber
  - From: Kartik Mistry <kartik.mistry@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: RFS: mscgen
Next by Date: Re: RFS: python-ipcalc [DONE]
Previous by thread: Re: RFS: gwibber
Next by thread: Re: RFS: gwibber
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread