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

Bug#742948: marked as done (O: iceowl -- Standalone Calendar Application)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Apr 2014 01:42:14 +0200
with message-id <20140406234214.GA31624@debian.org>
and subject line bug 742948 is O for package iceowl not in debian
has caused the Debian Bug report #742948,
regarding O: iceowl -- Standalone Calendar Application
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
742948: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=742948
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal

I intend to orphan the iceowl package.

So far we've been keeping up with iceowl (i.e. sunbird) builds by
patching the fallouts of upstream not caring much about the stand alone
calendar but sunbird code is being actively removed now, e.g.:

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=866903
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=984917

So let's bite the bullet and let it go. We'll add a iceowl package that
depends on iceowl-extension + icedove since this might be the most
expected upgrade path. Other findings about usable (GSSAPI capable)
calendars will be added on the groupware page:

    https://wiki.debian.org/Groupware

I've already filed a request for removal (#742924) but in case anybody
wants to pick this up, here's the bug for it. This would likely involve
picking up upstream as well.
Cheers,
 -- Guido

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

I'm closing this bug because iceowl was removed from Debian:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/iceowl

Regards.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: