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

Re: Bug#466487: libauthen-smb-perl: should this package be orphaned or removed?



On 21:32 Wed 20 Feb     , Hendrik Frenzel wrote:

Hi,

> Gunnar Wolf schrieb:
> > Xavier Oswald dijo [Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:17:31PM +0100]:
> >> (...)
> >> Upstream seems "dead" for these two packages.. so I don't know how to handle
> >> this situation...
> >>
> >> If libapache2-authenntlm-perl is orphaned we could take it and conflict on
> >> libauthen-smb-perl and the same for libauthen-smb-perl against
> >> libapache2-authenntlm-perl. But I don't like this idea...
> 
> I've updated my libapache2-authenntlm-perl packages and made them
> conflict with libauthen-smb-perl until another solution is found.
> 
> I also fixed some open bugs and imported the current version into the
> pkg-perl svn, but still with NOT RELEASED YET -tag. I'd be happy if
> someone could check them please and give me some feedback before
> releasing them.

Well, I have worked on libapache2-authenntlm-perl with fixing a lot of
linda/lintian warnings remaining and add me thus as uploader.

I have worked on libauthen-smb-perl too, in order to have it working with latest
debian policy (this package was very old !)

I think we can handled this situation about these packages by conflicting on
each other since they are not used that much, popcon 9 for
libapache2-authenntlm-perl and popcon 84 for libauthen-smb-perl.

libauthen-smb-perl maintainer accepted to give me his package.

So they are both now lintian and linda clean.
I think they are ready for an upload. If someone could have a look and give me
feedback or even upload them it would be nice.. it closes 3 RC bugs we have.

Thanks,
-- 
  ,''`.  Xavier Oswald <x.oswald@free.fr>                   
 : :' :  GNU/LINUX Debian Maintainer                        
 `. `'   GnuPG Key ID 0x88BBB51E                            
   `-    938D D715 6915 8860 9679  4A0C A430 C6AA 88BB B51E 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: