On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300 Samuli Suominen
> > <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
> > 
> >> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I
> >> question your motives in picking this particular one. It's not
> >> like I expected cookies for the time I've put into this porting
> >> effort, but not this "attack" either.
> > 
> > Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer.
> > I could have sworn that was written down somewhere.
> > 
> > 
> Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the
> timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the
> remaining broken packages will be gone.

Absolutely not.  They aren't even masked.  There are usually a few niche
packages that can't be fixed but are in use.  People can switch to a previous
version if they ever have to rebuild them.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                  it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets                           but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662