Hi. Sorry for the long To: list, but I am not sure who knows what is going on. Where I am working we are using mico. However, the version in debian/unstable is a bit dated, and as my coworkers want "the latest and greatest", I should probably "fix it". ;-) I am puzzled by mico's status; is it orphaned or adopted? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wnpp reports mico as ITA'd by Lenart Janos <ocsi@debian.org> 261 days ago. http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/being_adopted reports mico as in adoption for 257 days. apt-cache show libmico2.3.[567] reports only one package, still maintained by Stephen Crowley <crow@debian.org> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=132300 reports that it was orphaned on 4 Feb 2002 after some inactivity. shows that the O:rphaning has not been replied to except by spam on Mar 18 approximately that long ago. it also shows a title change by Jeff Bailey <jbailey@nisa.net>; maybe the reason it is an ITA now instead of an O:rphan? If the package is still up for adoption, I will adopt it. If Lenart Janos really did adopt it, then great. However, why is there no reply to the O: in the wnpp bug? I am suspecting that the spam at the bottom broke the bug. Finally, what are the specifics about "the library naming issue that upstream refuses to fix"? A versioning issue? Bad soname? Bad symlinks? Thanks for your time. --- Wes
Attachment:
pgpm_Hxcp0FeC.pgp
Description: PGP signature