| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Mike Frysinger schrieb: |
| 5 |
> On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack |
| 8 |
>> of maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list |
| 9 |
>> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in |
| 10 |
>> searching for a new maintainer. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> if there is no <herd> and no <maintainer>, then |
| 13 |
> "maintainer-needed@g.o" is implicit. why do we need to explicitly |
| 14 |
> list it ? -mike |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If that is the case, then removing would also be ok. But my point was |
| 17 |
that the packages still had other maintainers listed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Best regards, |
| 21 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 25 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iEYEARECAAYFAk8rNAsACgkQ+gvH2voEPRDbvACeKmIgmkscKmm4C4MbHMko90Bf |
| 28 |
2+cAmwdjHK5IPzUF7ZDH4QvSSqRiZytE |
| 29 |
=rfFY |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives