| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 06:50:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ah. That's apparently much more important than not breaking users by |
| 3 |
> providing them w/ non-vulnerable, decently uptodate stuff that's not |
| 4 |
> ridden by tons of bugs. Yup. :P |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Why do you keep trying to tell arch maintainers how to do their job ? Do |
| 7 |
I tell you how to do yours ? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Users of security-supported archs are not affected so what's your point |
| 10 |
again ? Assuming you have a valid one, of course, so please don't come |
| 11 |
back with that "maintainters don't want to maintain old/broken stuff" |
| 12 |
kind of argument. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm both an arch-maintainer and ebuild-maintainer and don't see a |
| 15 |
problem here... so from your _vast_ experience as both an |
| 16 |
ebuild-maintainer and arch-maintainer, what's the problem? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
- ferdy |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Fernando J. Pereda GarcimartÃn |
| 22 |
Gentoo Developer (Alpha,net-mail,mutt,git) |
| 23 |
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 |
Archives