Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 15:33:33
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush by Fabian Groffen
On 10/08/2011 06:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 08-10-2011 11:05:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> If the extra 16 days will actually accomplish something beyond just >> delaying libpng then we can debate the finer points of policy. >> However, if we're just arguing policy for its own sake then I don't >> see the value. Perhaps a package maintainer might have the "right" to >> a few weeks to fix things, but in the end you have to put the distro >> and its users first. You can do that either by speaking up or >> standing aside, but if you're going to speak up, then make sure you >> can follow through. > > It seems to me like you say here that any policy that Gentoo has that > you just don't like can be ignored because, well, you just don't like > it. > We can discuss whether or not the policy is ok, but should we ignore the > policy for that reason? I think not. > >
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. whatever - Samuli


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>