On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:29:31 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote: > Owners file stats: > - 43 packages not available in extras devel or release What is this based on? The list contains many packages which are NOT included anymore on purpose. Either obsoleted or not needed anymore (and mind you, we don't have any meta package where to put global obsoletes forever). At least these need not be put into this report: > andreas at bawue dot net dd_rescue > bugs dot michael at gmx dot net libgcrypt1 > denis at poolshark dot org gtkmm20 > denis at poolshark dot org libgnomemm20 > denis at poolshark dot org libglademm20 > denis at poolshark dot org libgnomecanvasmm20 > denis at poolshark dot org libgnomeuimm20 > denis at poolshark dot org gconfmm20 > dennis at ausil dot us cryptplug > fedora at leemhuis dot info alsa-firmware > mattdm at mattdm dot org wxPythonGTK2 > matthias at rpmforge dot net php-pecl-pdo > matthias at rpmforge dot net php-pecl-sqlite > matthias at rpmforge dot net php-pecl-pdo-sqlite > matthias at rpmforge dot net php-mmcache > nomis80 at nomis80 dot org juk > wtogami at redhat dot com openoffice-extras Files merged into Core package long ago. > davidhart at tqmcube dot com leafnode Smells like a AWOL maintainer. > - 5 packages which have not yet been FE-APPROVE'd... > > Openbox Peter Gordon > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_id=165689,184080 A false positive? This is a resurrection attempt. owners.list only contains the very old entry from fedora.us era. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
