On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:04:27PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote: > Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > > We did not use the rdiff-backup package from Debian > > because it's too old. > > rdiff-backup is and was always uptodate in Debian testing and unstable. > However, in sarge it is outdated, something I can't fix, but aside of > the unstable version, I also maintain the backport of rdiff-backup on > backports.org. This should be enough. > > Atm, rdiff-backup is broken because of the python transition, something > I have to look into. > > And yes, you could have just emailed me, I'm pretty responsive... > > Kevin Mark wrote: > > Unless someone has the > > desire to possibly do a 'friendly' takeover if the maintainer is MIA. > > I know you said it without knowing, but I'm anything else than mia, I'm > even reading debian-user ;) Hi Daniel, I didn't realize that the OP was referring to Sarge and that sid has a more up-to-date version. I would have suggested backports.org in that case. I would never suggest a takeover of a package that is being maintained, only one that was not being maintained enough for the users for a forthcomming release. Glad to hear that you are not MIA and that you are keeping backports! I'm sure the OP should be able to use that. cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and | | `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature