> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 > >> removed from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for > >> gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as found in experimental). Could you do this? > >> Nikita, could you sponsor the package? > > > > Sure, that was my real goal anyway; gcc-4.5 just looked lonely without > > its documentation, and it didn't seem like it would be much more work > > to do them both than to just do gcc-4.6. > > I wonder if I should interpret the silence from Nikita as meaning "not > now, I'm busy"? Sorry for silence. I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when. Hoped to do so on this weekend, but weekend is already over and I did not. Real life sucks :( Btw, I don't claim "ownership" for these packages. I never did. I just once packaged gcc-doc because nobody did, and I did not want debian stable without gcc-doc. So absolutely don't object someone else uploading gcc-doc. Maintainer for gcc-doc has been always set to email@example.com Just beware of ugly licensing issues. Ensure that gfdl.1 is forced in by the dependences, etc Nikita
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.