Le mer 2 août 2006 13:11, Matej Vela a écrit : > 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. there is, it's the QA Group. packages officialy orphaned are really less a pain that packages with a MIA maintainer. I understand sometimes one has to sort out the very old packages from the QA group, and that's good, but here it looks like a used and not that buggy package, so I second the fact that it should not be removed. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp1XqonXUbSD.pgp
Description: PGP signature