Hi !
I would like to request orphaning of paramiko:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/paramiko.html
Only NMU upload have been done since more than one year and its current
maintainer is totally unresponsive (see #460706 for example). It seems
that its email address is now bouncing.
Thanks.
--
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:15 -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:16PM +, James Westby wrote:
Would the pkg-ocaml team be willing to take it over
and make it build again? If not is it a valid candidate
for removal?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:38:56AM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
Confirmed, the files in incoming on master are not updated:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 qa qa 1345440 2008-03-24 22:44 update_excuses.html
-rw-rw-r-- 1 qa qa 153578 2008-03-24 22:44 update_excuses.html.gz
though ATM I am unable to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 473158 + confirmed
Bug#473158: PTS testing status is stale
There were no tags set.
Tags added: confirmed
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian
Your message dated Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:26:41 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Re: Bug#473158: PTS testing status is stale
has caused the Debian Bug report #473158,
regarding PTS testing status is stale
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Hi Barry,
On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 11:46 -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
There is still a lintian warning about the copyright because there are
not dates but I really don't want to dig through all the tarballs.
According to debian/copyright and debian/changelog , it's around since
2002 march/april.
On 29/03/2008, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
First, was the debhelper compatibility upgrade necessary? I think
leaving it at level 4 makes backporting easier.
$ rmadison debhelper
debhelper | 4.2.32 | oldstable | source, all
debhelper | 5.0.42 | etch-m68k | source, all
debhelper
Coin,
Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
installable. And that is exactly what edos.debian.net has found. It
even tells you the reason:
libactiveldap-ruby1.8 (= 0.9.0-2) depends on libgettext-ruby1.8
{libgettext-ruby1.8 (= 1.90.0-1)} libgettext-ruby1.8 (= 1.90.0-1)
depends on
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it even worth it? It's buggy, has a popcon of 12, and hasn't seen an
upstream update since 2001?? My vote would be for removal.
I agree, and I haven't seen any interest in picking it up.
Would anyone object to
9 matches
Mail list logo
