| 1 |
Markos Chandras posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer. |
| 6 |
>> I could have sworn that was written down somewhere. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the |
| 9 |
> timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the |
| 10 |
> remaining broken packages will be gone. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Are you seriously proposing that libpng 1.5 should follow a six-month- |
| 13 |
hard-masked before unmasking to ~arch and 18-month-to-stable (total, |
| 14 |
including the hard-mask time) timeline? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Because that's the sort of timeline you're comparing against. What's the |
| 17 |
rush, again, especially if it can't be stabilized anyway for another nine |
| 18 |
months? 30 days doesn't look so long against that after all, does it? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 22 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 23 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives