On Wednesday 25 June 2008 11:08:07 Dean Scarff wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:55:35 -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote: > > Even though the "6" seems unnecessary, there's no reason _not_ to > > continue using it--anybody who wants to test this can avoid > > collisions simply by using their local tree. Moreover, since it has > > a -shlibs splitoff and the libraries look to be identical to those > > I was more offering the packaging as a proof of concept that the > latest version of ipe doesn't seem to have any technical build > problems (although obviously I'm on 10.4). I'd fix it up if I was > maintaining it for the official tree, which I assume is the subtext > > in: > > If the listed maintainer doesn't respond within a reasonable > > interval, we should assume that he no longer has any interest in > > maintaining the package. > > At which time I should send an ITP?
I've no Idea what that particular TLA is, but yes. Since the current maintainer's listed address bounced for me, I'd say just to push forward on this and plan to take the package over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
