On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> I'm removing the not-fit-for-wheezy tag since Thomas claims to have >> improved on that matter. > > > It still have the tag `not-fit-for-wheezy'.
This is more evidence that this tag doesn't actually provide anything useful. This package was removed from unstable, and didn't get back there before the freeze, so it is not a candidate for wheezy based on the release team's guidelines. Even if the sponsoree has high wishes of getting into wheezy at this point, it simply doesn't matter since release team trumps everyone else. That said, if someone wants to sponsor to unstable, that's fine. I'm not going to do it because it's not something I'm interested in. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MMMCofR0KH=4oybioLVrhKq9pcHfi8u0B61PdJp=fq...@mail.gmail.com
