[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Assignments III (2003/04/18)



On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:04:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

> Steve Langasek
> 	187905/hamfax followup: NMU? mark as MIA/orphaned?

NMUed.  Maintainer has been seen recently on the debian-hams list, but
only to say he no longer uses another ham-related package; has not yet
replied to prodding on my part, but too soon to mark as MIA, I think.
Will likely orphan.

> 	124290/lodju followup: anything happening?

No overt sign of activity yet; haven't had a chance to follow up.

> 	188120/astrolog followup: remove/update ia64/ppc/sparc bins?

Maintainer has not responded to poking.  Will request removal of
the out-of-date binaries.

> 	156165 [       ] nscache: refuses to start

Useless, Netscape-specific package; reassigned to ftp.d.o.

> 	xmms-goom

Out-of-date on all non-i386 architectures, because the package is now
arch: i386.  Per feedback from elmo, will be working to restore the
portability of the package.  Currently hoping the maintainer will take
the initiative. (#191927)

> bulkmail

Out-of-date due to standard non-free issues.  Bug filed.

> ucbmpeg

Ditto.  Maintainer has requested help in getting the binaries built, and
made it clear he doesn't have a lot of time for it; I'll be pressing him
to orphan the package.

> -busybox-source-0.60.0

Package has already been removed from unstable at ROM; unfortunately,
the maintainer overlooked a package that declared a Build-Depends-Indep
on it.  We need a version of autoinstall-i386 that doesn't rely on the
old package, then it can be removed from unstable as well.

> 	155472 [       ] icqv7-t_0.3.0pre2-3(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: non-PIC ...

Fixed by maintainer.

> 	144841 [       ] doesn't build on arm
> 	155374 [P      ] Where are Installation Manual and Release Notes
> 	156057 [       ] timidity-patches: copyright file does not state ...

And these I haven't gotten to.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpb6QcJFNkdY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: