On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:19:24PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 16:05]: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:35:15PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Daniel Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 03:55]: > > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:35:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > > > Branden Robinson: eleven packages, two other jobs > > > > > nine in good shape, two could be better. > > > > > other jobs in good shape (though one, policy, might not really > > > > > exist) > > > > > > > I would argue that xfree86 could be in far better shape; X.Org 6.7.0 > > > > was released in April 2004, 6.8.0 in August 2004 (IIRC), and there have > > > > been two point releases of 6.8.x since. Despite the availability of > > > > xorg packages, Debian is still languishing with XFree86 4.3 (release > > > > date was February 2003, I believe). > > > > Just for the record, the release team asked for not updating X to X.org > > > in sarge. Thanks, Branden, for respecting this. > > > But we could have had X.org in experimental [...] > > As the campaining period was already over at the time of writing my > mail, I restricted myself to bring some hard facts up why we don't have > x.org in unstable and sarge. I think it would be unfair on Branden to > not tell them, but - well, I don't want to continue discussions after > end of campaining.
Ok, point taken. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
