On 2012-12-14 13:51:43, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:12:25 Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > So this should be an ITP instead, shouldn't it? You clearly intend to > > package it. > > Not just intended to package by I already packaged it so it could be RFS. :) > > I know it looks like a mistake but it's not: although packaging is practically > finished at the moment I can't continue working on it due to limited time. > Therefore I dumped results of my effort in hope that someone might pick it up > where I left it. Eventually I may return and help maintain it (let's see how > it goes) but at the moment I'm not going to request sponsorship etc. so the > package if free for take over. > > It is RFP because I no longer (actively) work on it. Thanks for clarifying. It wasn't clear to me in the beginning. Regards -- Sebastian Ramacher
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature