On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:09:45PM +0200, Matej Vela wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Laurent Fousse wrote: > > * Matej Vela [Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:10:09AM +0200]: > > > Let's see what the developers think. Is cabot ready for etch, or > > > should we wait until someone adopts it? > > > > #289417 and #280588 are not going to happen because last time I > > checked, nobody was volunteer to continue maintaining cabot > > _upstream-wise_. Considering the fact that cabot was never part of > > testing *and* that a significant part of upstream thinks something > > along the line of "Oh well, caff is part of the signing-party package > > and is good enough/better than cabot anyway so why bother" so my > > opinion is that letting cabot in etch as-is is a bad idea. > > > > cabot needs someone that's interested in upstream development before > > we let it go in etch. Merely adopting the debian package is not enough > > for our users. > > Qingning, you expressed an interest in adopting cabot. Is this still > the case? Would you like to take over upstream maintenance as well? > Hi, I am interested in cabot, but I do not seem to have the time to give it proper care at the moment. I will set it back to orphan. Qingning
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature