| 1 |
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 8 |
> > On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300 Samuli Suominen |
| 9 |
> > <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> >> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I |
| 12 |
> >> question your motives in picking this particular one. It's not |
| 13 |
> >> like I expected cookies for the time I've put into this porting |
| 14 |
> >> effort, but not this "attack" either. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer. |
| 17 |
> > I could have sworn that was written down somewhere. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the |
| 21 |
> timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the |
| 22 |
> remaining broken packages will be gone. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Absolutely not. They aren't even masked. There are usually a few niche |
| 25 |
packages that can't be fixed but are in use. People can switch to a previous |
| 26 |
version if they ever have to rebuild them. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense |
| 31 |
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime |
| 32 |
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives