Bug#313570: can you get rid of your build-dependency on cons?

2005-06-15 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-14 21:18]: #206100 is the WNPP bug. Feel free to adopt it if it's still maintained upstream. Unfortunately, upstream has been inactive for a while now. I was involved in an effort to try to rework it, but that kinda didn't really go anywhere.

Bug#313570: can you get rid of your build-dependency on cons?

2005-06-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr
Package: atom4 Version: 4.1-1 Severity: important Your package is the only one which still has a build-dependency on cons. cons has been orphaned since August 2003 (665 days ago) so it seems unlikely that it will be adopted soon. Since I intend to remove cons from the archive, it would be good

Bug#313570: can you get rid of your build-dependency on cons?

2005-06-14 Thread H. S. Teoh
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:25:12PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: Package: atom4 Version: 4.1-1 Severity: important Your package is the only one which still has a build-dependency on cons. cons has been orphaned since August 2003 (665 days ago) so it seems unlikely that it will be adopted

Bug#313570: can you get rid of your build-dependency on cons?

2005-06-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-14 10:55]: Do you think that's possible? [...] Hmm. Is there any technical reason cons is being orphaned? If nobody I don't think so. wants to maintain it, I will adopt it (I use Cons a lot for my #206100 is the WNPP bug. Feel free to adopt it if

Bug#313570: can you get rid of your build-dependency on cons?

2005-06-14 Thread H. S. Teoh
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:01:53AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-14 10:55]: Do you think that's possible? [...] Hmm. Is there any technical reason cons is being orphaned? If nobody I don't think so. wants to maintain it, I will adopt it (I