| 1 |
Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
20090215212907.00a735b9@g.o, excerpted below, on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 |
| 3 |
21:29:07 +0100: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> +# Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o> (15 Feb 2009) |
| 6 |
> +# Masking for removal in 30 days. |
| 7 |
> +# Fails to build with gcc-4.3, bug 250712 |
| 8 |
> +media-video/gephex |
| 9 |
> + |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Shouldn't there be a bit more to it than that, something about it being |
| 12 |
maintainer-needed, or maintainer unwilling to work on it further, or |
| 13 |
upstream dead, or some combination of the above? Just because it doesn't |
| 14 |
compile with the latest GCC isn't normally considered reason in itself to |
| 15 |
remove a package. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Also note that there's a "new" (April, 2007) version 0.4.4, on the site, |
| 18 |
that may work better with newer gcc than the 2005 version 0.4.3 that's |
| 19 |
the latest in our tree. So maybe it well could be maintainer-needed, but |
| 20 |
that should be in the masking for removal reason, if so, and ideally, |
| 21 |
listed in the last rites announcement here, in case anyone's interested |
| 22 |
in taking a look at it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That said, I don't have any particular interest in it, so I don't have a |
| 25 |
problem with it disappearing. I just found the ONLY reason given an |
| 26 |
uncommon enough reason for removal on its own that it warranted comment, |
| 27 |
is all. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives