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

Re: Updating w.d.o/{intro/organization#distribution,ports/}



[ Huge cross-post, sorry. Please, only respond to your port list and
  debian-www@l.d.o, or at least keep me CC if you drop debian-www ]

Hi ports and ports-like team,

Le 05/04/2012 16:27, David Prévot a écrit :

> The ports and ports-like part of our organization page [1] might be
> pretty outdated on the members side. Could you please confirm that the
> members list of your team is still accurate, or provide an updated list.
> Without any answer within a week, I'll drop the members name from this
> page, but will keep the name of the port and a link to the mailing list
> as main contact point. If you answer after a week, I'll also be happy to
> update the page afterwards.

It's been a long week… Thanks to Bill (Alpha), Dann (IA-64), Thorsten
(m68k), Carlos and John (PA-RISC), Samuel and Svante (GNU/Hurd), and
Christoph and Arno (GNU/kFreeBSD), the organization page [1] has just
been updated.

http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/intro/organization.data?r1=1.428&r2=1.429

If you have a second thought, please don't hesitate to reply so we can
update the page [1].

> 	1: http://www.debian.org/intro/organization#distribution
> 
> If you have any update to propose about your port page [2], I'd also be
> happy to update the respective page on your behalf, and would be even
> happier if you do it yourself (please, ask for write access [3] if
> you're not already a member of webwml).
> 
> 	2: http://www.debian.org/ports/
> 	3: http://www.debian.org/devel/website/using_cvs#write-access

The offer still stands ;-)

> We also have one open bug report [4] about the www.d.o/ports/ part,
> specific to amd64, any help to solve it would be welcome (closing it in
> case it doesn't make sense could also be appropriate).
> 
> 	4: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611830

This one too…

Regards

David


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: