Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

2010-06-13 Thread Markos Chandras
If you care enough about this package, move it to sunrise or step up and proxy maintain it, cooperating with a developer http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/ProxyMaintainer On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:21 AM, wrote: > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:04:26PM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > Short

Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

2010-06-12 Thread schism
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:04:26PM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Shortage of man power will do this, especially for maintainer-needed > packages. It was not my intent to personally offend you regarding this > package. I know no personal offense was intended, nor was any taken. There should be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

2010-06-12 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On 06/12/2010 10:39 PM, sch...@subverted.org wrote: Why was a valid package removed for an errant comment in the ebuild? It's not dead upstream, and someone (me) took the time to actually look at it and note that the issue was at least mostly addressed, except for the comment. Hi. Most importa

Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

2010-06-12 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 8:39 PM, wrote: > Why was a valid package removed for an errant comment in the ebuild? > It's not dead upstream, and someone (me) took the time to actually look > at it and note that the issue was at least mostly addressed, except for > the comment. I'm pretty sure the pr

[gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

2010-06-12 Thread schism
Why was a valid package removed for an errant comment in the ebuild? It's not dead upstream, and someone (me) took the time to actually look at it and note that the issue was at least mostly addressed, except for the comment. Then again, what's one more in my overlay of 54 packages, most of which