Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-18 Thread Gareth Pearce
back from skiiing - with lots of catching up to do... On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: I guess I'll have to become one quickly, for my votes to count... How about coreutils? Or has someone already

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-12 Thread Elfyn McBratney
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: I guess I'll have to become one quickly, for my votes to count... How about coreutils? Or has someone already volunteered for that? I think Gareth half did. You can have

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-12 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: I guess I'll have to become one quickly, for my votes to count... How about coreutils? Or has someone already volunteered for that? cgf Naw, I think I'd rather start with

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
I think it would make sense for there to be a limitation on how long a package exists in this table with no votes. I think that after two months of no votes the package should fall off the list. On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:38:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @ LPRng date : 21 Jan 2003

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Nicholas Wourms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it would make sense for there to be a limitation on how long a package exists in this table with no votes. I think that after two months of no votes the package should fall off the list. I respectfully disagree, especially now that we have someone who is

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:23:16PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it would make sense for there to be a limitation on how long a package exists in this table with no votes. I think that after two months of no votes the package should fall off the list. I

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Earnie Boyd
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:23:16PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it would make sense for there to be a limitation on how long a package exists in this table with no votes. I think that after two months of no votes the package should

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 03:43:05PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:23:16PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it would make sense for there to be a limitation on how long a package exists in this table with no votes. I

RE: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Trevor Forbes
I would like to give proj and libgeotiff my vote if that's ok. Regards Trevor @ proj date : 08 Mar 2003 version: 4.4.6-1 status : not reviewed notes : http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00176.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-06/msg00162.html

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 09:46:59AM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: I would like to give proj and libgeotiff my vote if that's ok. Unfortunately, AFAIK, you are not a package maintainer. The package maintainer club is who gets to vote. cgf

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 09:46:59AM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: I would like to give proj and libgeotiff my vote if that's ok. Unfortunately, AFAIK, you are not a package maintainer. The package maintainer club is who gets to vote. cgf Oops,

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:26:23PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 09:46:59AM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: I would like to give proj and libgeotiff my vote if that's ok. Unfortunately, AFAIK, you are not a package maintainer.

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:26:23PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 09:46:59AM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: I would like to give proj and libgeotiff my vote if that's ok.

Re: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: I guess I'll have to become one quickly, for my votes to count... How about coreutils? Or has someone already volunteered for that? cgf

RE: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

2003-07-11 Thread Trevor Forbes
: [UPDATE] Pending package status (11 Jul 2003) On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 09:46:59AM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: I would like to give proj and libgeotiff my vote if that's ok. Unfortunately, AFAIK, you are not a package maintainer. The package maintainer club is who gets to vote. cgf