| 1 |
On 12/03/10 17:17, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12-03-2010 08:46:34 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 3 |
>> That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not |
| 4 |
>> wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that |
| 5 |
>> all disgruntled users and developers create a qt3 project and |
| 6 |
>> adopt/unmask/re-commit the qt3 libraries for maintainers of packages |
| 7 |
>> who need it. I doubt this will happen as this could have been done a |
| 8 |
>> long time ago, but it's never too late. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Didn't we have a graveyard thing/overlay somewhere some day? Some users |
| 11 |
> might happily prefer to use stuff that's treecleaned, or removed due |
| 12 |
> security issues. If removal of stuff would mean it's dumped in there it |
| 13 |
> can be easily used by users and more easily readded later afterwards, if |
| 14 |
> need arises. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As we have the "overlay depend on overlay" support now, we could easily |
| 19 |
put those packages into the sci overlay, if there would be a qt3 |
| 20 |
support/lib overlay. |
Archives