On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 02:13:50PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote: > vorlon@debian.org wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote: > > > > rlpr is in the same state as pavuk above. > > > I didn't look into pavuk, but rlpr has as far as I see no weird state. > > You seem to be right, though previous attempts to cleanly remove this > > package from testing had failed. > > > The latest Debian version is from the above DSA (2.02-7woody1), which > > > could savely be included in sarge. Upstream has 2.05, though. > > > I would not like to see it removed. > > Are you willing to maintain the package yourself? > I'd be willing, but I'm not a DD (yet). > I am an advanced user and did some private packaging before, but didn't > find anything useful and unmaintained to help with. So if anyone would > sponsor me maintaining rlpr, I could and would help out. > On the other hand rlpr isn't officially ophaned, maybe a DD would pick > this rather small package up, if that was the case. Would be a quicker move. It would be good if you would try to work this out together with the current maintainer, and if necessary, the debian-qa mailing list. Brian may be willing to sponsor you even if he doesn't have time to maintain rlpr himself anymore; and if not, the debian-qa team can help you get the package orphaned so that you can set about finding a sponsor or NMUer the usual way. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature