reopen 71107
retitle 71107 Explorer is unmaintained and should be removed
thanks
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 03:27:00AM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
It's orphaned. And has been for about 7 months. The maintainer
should be debian-qa, but it has not been reset to that.
...that would
I would also recommend removing explorer as it depends on a non-existant
package (qt1g and not libqt1g) and therefore isn't installable.
done.
I cannot remove explorer unless the maintainer asks. besides, it should be
recompilable with qt2.2.
ok...the source we (Debian) have for
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 06:39:36PM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
As it is now the current package does not work, cannot be installed due
to dependencies, and it's not part of main. The last few uploads have
been done as NMU's...
that in itself could suggest that it could be removed. but...
Michael Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The maintainer may be unaware of our conversation, (god knows why)
and may be working on an upload as we speak. IMO, its the same
philosophy as doing a NMU.
Oh, yeah.
http://bugs.debian.org/68274
It's orphaned. And has been for about 7
The maintainer may be unaware of our conversation, (god knows why)
and may be working on an upload as we speak. IMO, its the same
philosophy as doing a NMU.
Oh, yeah.
http://bugs.debian.org/68274
It's orphaned. And has been for about 7 months. The maintainer
should be
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:01:00AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
Oh, yeah.
http://bugs.debian.org/68274
It's orphaned. And has been for about 7 months. The maintainer
should be debian-qa, but it has not been reset to that.
...that would explain it. :)
righto then, if
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:35:44AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
'explorer' also depends on it (using the old qt1g package name)
Explorer also has nine bugs, some important, six over two years old.
Note especially:
#29053: package explorer depends on obsolete library libstdc++2.8 (1y, 308d)
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't think explorer is sufficient justification to keep qt1 in woody.
I wasn't implying it was. I was just saying it needs to be fixed, or
removed.
--
Brian M. Almeida
Linux Systems Engineer | http://www.winstar.com | [EMAIL
Hey,
I'd like to remove qt1 from woody. I only seem to find 1 package that
depends on it currently (tuxeyes) and due to the fact that it's non-free
and qt2 is out with a gpl'd license and all, I think we should discourage it's
use just as Troll is.
Ivan
--
Ivan E. Moore
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:16:03AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
Hey,
I'd like to remove qt1 from woody. I only seem to find 1 package that
depends on it currently (tuxeyes) and due to the fact that it's non-free
and qt2 is out with a gpl'd license and all, I think we should discourage
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:35:44AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:16:03AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
Hey,
I'd like to remove qt1 from woody. I only seem to find 1 package that
depends on it currently (tuxeyes) and due to the fact that it's non-free
and
11 matches
Mail list logo
