--=-8qZjvAzddHouHuCwHAiV
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 08:01, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> I am showing both testing and unstable as having 1.2 not 1.0.  I belive
> 1.3 would be an "expiremental" release.  Likely they won't package until
> it becomes 1.4?  I searched http://www.apt-get.org which usually has some
> good stuff from maintainers, but it doesn't appear any maintainer has
> packaged this goodness yet.
>=20
> I looked at the bugs filed against the package and none of them include a
> request for newer version.  I would consider making a bug submittal askin=
g
> for upgraded packaging based on new upstream release.  Akira is a decent
> maintainer and if he agrees likely will turn it fairly quickly.

Okay, so what is the policy on all this?  It is definitely a development
package, so I would guess it should go in experimental.  Is it policy to
have development packages there?  Is it standard to file a bug if
they're not there?

		--Ted


--=-8qZjvAzddHouHuCwHAiV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAHHgQLE335pRPGp0RAgpWAJsEjsLSpUq/vc9opNW+E2IinMHj7wCeLJ9B
PNadaKVZkySvsHbgROYapy4=
=cUvW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-8qZjvAzddHouHuCwHAiV--