[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#736085: marked as done (RFS: doublecmd/0.5.8-1 -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:46:45 +0100
with message-id <52EA49B5.5000106@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#736085: RFS: doublecmd/0.5.8-1 -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager
has caused the Debian Bug report #736085,
regarding RFS: doublecmd/0.5.8-1 -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
736085: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736085
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors

I am looking for a sponsor for my update to package "doublecmd":

* Package name    : doublecmd
  Version         : 0.5.8
  Upstream Author : Alexander Koblov <alexx2000@mail.ru>
* URL             : http://doublecmd.sourceforge.net
* License         : GPL, LGPL
  Section         : utils

It builds the following binary packages:

doublecmd-common - twin-panel (commander-style) file manager
doublecmd-gtk - twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (GTK2)
doublecmd-gtk-dbg - twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (GTK2 - Debug)
doublecmd-qt - twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4)
doublecmd-qt-dbg - twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4 - Debug)

My packaging attempt is available here:

http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/doublecmd.git

Regards
Graham

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Graham,

On 27-01-14 08:49, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi Paul
> 
> On 24/01/2014 11:42, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> Interesting that I have missed this the first time that you did this
>> work. Funny thing is that we are trying to get things related to
>> FreePascal into one team, so I invite you to have a look at pkg-pascal
>> on Alioth.
> 
> I'd be happy to maintain doublecmd and doublecmd-help packages as part
> of the pkg-pascal team.

So, please request to be added to the team via the web-interface and
subscribe to the e-mail list. I will acknowledge when I receive the request.

>> If upstream of doublecmd is really active, maybe we should drop tuxcmd
>> altogether (it is orphaned). If we do, maybe we could help people
>> migrate in the next release by handling this properly.
>
> Would/could we do this even if doublecmd is not a fork of tuxcmd?

Difficult question, but I believe the answer is yes. As tuxcmd is
currently unmaintained in Debian, and hardly supported upstream, I think
it is warranted to request for removal (or depending on the scheme we
intent to follow, an adoption). If doublecmd is a viable replacement of
tuxcmd, we can help Debian users to find a replacement which can be
supported from the Debian point of view. I must admit, I haven't fully
figured out how we should do this the right way™.

>> Could you investigate (if you have the time of course) if tuxcmd has
>> features that are still lacking in doublecmd?
> 
> Is this still required, seeing that doublecmd is not a fork of tuxcmd?

If you feel my response above is not fully ridiculous, the answer is yes.

But in the mean time, as discussed in private, build, signed and
uploaded for now.

Paul

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: