OK...not even a whisper, so I'm guessing I was the only perl person that liked 
having the gtk-perl bindings around. I'll go forward with the maskings :/

On Monday 20 November 2006 08:00, Michael Cummings wrote:
> As most of you are probably aware, the gnome team has decided to remove
> gnome-1 from the tree because it is a drain on their resources to support
> (my wording for it). While I can sympathize and understand the argument, we
> (perl) have more than a few modules/apps that rely on this gnome-1 support
> to function. A few Gentoo developers, such as spyderous, have offered to
> continue to support gnome-1 to help keep their apps alive, and have asked
> if we would like to be a part of that. Rather than arbitrarily say yes all
> on my lonesome (since we all know my hard core c/c++ skills are lacking),
> I'd like to ask your opinions. Just to give a brief sample, we're talking
> about packages like gtk-perl, glade-perl (which would be moved under
> gtk-perl per a pending bug, but I didn't see the point in pursuing that
> while gtk-perl was package.masked), bins, and the associated modules.
>
> --
>
> -----o()o----------------------------------------------
> Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
> Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net
> Gentoo/SPARC
> Gentoo/AMD64
> GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
> -----o()o----------------------------------------------

-- 

-----o()o----------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-----o()o----------------------------------------------

Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature.