From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7404 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2001 00:08:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7382 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 00:08:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bastion.datatask.com.au) (202.160.148.178) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2001 00:08:38 -0000 Received: from evan.deathsdoor.com (generic155.internal.datatask.com.au [192.168.1.155]) by bastion.datatask.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02583 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:08:35 +1100 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115110210.00a18bc0@192.168.1.1> X-Sender: e@foobar.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:26:00 -0000 To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: E Subject: Re: no more package moratorium? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 Robert Collins wrote: >I agree. They must also *At this point* agree to maintain the package do >upgrades feed patches to the vendor etc, and that they will announce >publicly if they decide to stop maintaining the package with as much >warning as possible. Packages with no maintainers are pulled after 3 >months. And perhaps put a big "[UNMAINTAINED]" on the start of the description for that three months to perhaps prompt an enterprising soul to take it up? (Or at least as a warning of it's immanent departure :-) ) E. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/