| 1 |
Daniel Ostrow wrote the following on 03.10.2006 19:22 : |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Ok...lets try this... |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Gentoo-wiki does not now nor will it ever get linked to from official |
| 6 |
> Gentoo media, documentation, or anything else within the www.gentoo.org |
| 7 |
> namespace... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It seemed to me that although it is hosted in the www.gentoo.org space |
| 12 |
the GWN isn't official Gentoo stuff. |
| 13 |
Plus : http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060424-newsletter.xml |
| 14 |
I can understand the problem with linking to the Wiki but I believe this |
| 15 |
source of information is not too bad, considered what google returns for |
| 16 |
gentoo cflags. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> It is inherently unreliable and outside of Gentoo's control. It will eat |
| 19 |
> your dog, kill your cat, club baby seals and make the hole in the O-Zone |
| 20 |
> layer bigger... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I can add a reminder that this is unofficial stuff if it's important to |
| 24 |
devs, but as stated above I believed content in the GWN should be |
| 25 |
approved by the GWN people not devs (I remember there were discussions |
| 26 |
of making GWN official, but I believe it isn't yet). Feel free to sched |
| 27 |
more light on this for me. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Lionel. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives