On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:12 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > Many us
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Many users seem to think
> > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
> > most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that th
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 20:27 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
> > already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the
> > submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be
> > PERFECT in every
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 00:02 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
snip...
> Indeed, your name is everywhere when it comes down to rox thing. Because
> your dedication on rox subject, I am willing to help you become a dev,
> but I need to be sure you are not going to dissapear in the very next
> moment.
> Gent
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:50 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> If bugs are not handled in a timely manner, it is because we're
> shorthanded. This is also the reason new ebuilds are often assigned to
> maintainer-wanted. We'd rather not add packages to portage if there is
> no developer to pick u
Several core ROX programs are out of date.
Rox bug # 102228
Rox-lib bug # 79333
Rox-clib bug # 78309
Despite the above bug reports, and copies to the current listed
maintainers, the products are not being updated.
Rox is among the easiest programs to maintain, and many ebuilds simply
need to be
