Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better

To: Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: 349833@bugs.debian.org, debian-qa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
From: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:11:46 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 87ejvzs87h.fsf@debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 9935DB0B-2ECB-475F-A3F8-EE74F3A4EAED@sel.cam.ac.uk> (Matthew Vernon's message of "Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:26:54 +0100")
References: <[🔎] 87psfjv86n.fsf@debian.org> <[🔎] 9935DB0B-2ECB-475F-A3F8-EE74F3A4EAED@sel.cam.ac.uk>

Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk> writes:

> On 2 Aug 2006, at 09:44, Matej Vela wrote:
>
>> I think we should remove ud.
>[...]
>
> I, for one, still use this, haven't had a problem with it for years,
> and would be sad to see it go. None of the bugs against it are show-
> stoppers, either.

Please do adopt it then.  I simply don't think it should ship with
etch without either an upstream or a Debian maintainer.

Thanks,

Matej

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
  - From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>

References:
- RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
  - From: Matej Vela <vela@debian.org>
- Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
  - From: Matthew Vernon <matthew@sel.cam.ac.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
Next by Date: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
Previous by thread: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
Next by thread: Re: RM: ud -- RoQA; orphaned, no upstream, uptimed is better
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread