Hi,
I happened to see this bug, and am the maintainer of libgfshare in Debian...
I don't see any particular reason to remove unless it develops RC bugs,
but I thought I'd explain the difference between the two implementations.
The reason the two packages don't interoperate is that they use
* Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net, 2009-08-08, 21:29:
While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible
candidate for removal from Debian, because:
* No upload since 2006
* Low popcon
* Better (at least, more used) alternative available: libgfshare-bin
Huh?!
* Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net, 2009-08-11, 23:20:
* No upload since 2006
No changes upstream since 2006, no bugs filed to fix.
How about #438045?
A strong point in favor of removing it is that we should not mislead
users to software when a better alternative exists. Are there
severity 540556 important
thanks
On 11/08/09 at 11:49 +0100, James Westby wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Package:
Version: 0.5-2
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: proposed-removal
Hi James,
While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Package:
Version: 0.5-2
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: proposed-removal
Hi James,
While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible
candidate for removal from Debian, because:
* No upload since 2006
No
Package:
Version: 0.5-2
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: proposed-removal
Hi James,
While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible
candidate for removal from Debian, because:
* No upload since 2006
* Low popcon
* Better (at least, more
6 matches
Mail list logo
