O: mico-2.3.5 -- A fully compliant CORBA implementation
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
The current maintainer of mico-2.3.5, Stephen Crowley
<crow@debian.org>, has orphaned this package. If you want to be the
new maintainer, please take it -- retitle this bug from 'O:' to
'ITA:', fix the outstanding bugs and upload a new version with your
name in the Maintainer: field and a
* New maintainer (Closes: #thisbug)
in the changelog so this bug is closed.
Some information about this package:
Package: mico-2.3.5
Binary: mico-bin, libmico-dev, libmico2.3.5
Version: 2.3.5-2
Priority: optional
Section: devel
Package: mico-bin
Priority: optional
Section: misc
Installed-Size: 4172
Maintainer: Stephen Crowley <crow@debian.org>
Architecture: i386
Source: mico-2.3.5
Version: 2.3.5-2
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.3-1), libncurses5 (>= 5.2.20010310-1),
libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2, libmico2.3.5
Recommends: libmico-dev
Conflicts: mico, mico-2.2.6, mico-2.3.0
Filename: pool/main/m/mico-2.3.5/mico-bin_2.3.5-2_i386.deb
Size: 1001144
MD5sum: ad273228aab43368c11c75c60b5bfb40
Description: A fully compliant CORBA implementation, executables
The acronym MICO expands to MICO Is CORBA. The intention of this project is
to provide a freely available and fully compliant implementation of the
CORBA standard. MICO has become quite popular as an OpenSource project and
is widely used for different purposes. As a major milestone, MICO has been
branded as CORBA compliant by the OpenGroup.
.
Executables
* Tille, Andreas <TilleA@rki.de> [20020204 11:11]:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> > > Perhaps someone could checked if the new upstream version 2.3.6.
> > > Would fix all issues.
> >
> > Please.. go ahead.. I don't really have time/patience to maintain mico
> > anymore. There are numerous upstream issues, mainly the library naming issue
> > that upstream refuses to fix. In fact I don't know if anything actually uses
> > this pacakge any more.. maybe it can just be removed?
> In this case you should just Orphan the package to let people know about
> this fact. Moreover it shuold just be removed from testing.
>
> Could you care about that or should someone else set the maintainer field
> to QA?
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
Reply to: