Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Davide Pesavento <pesa@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:56:04
Message-Id: CADfzvvbV-Hwy3ievQ4b10zbjm6vf_e=hyQNwT5vfzGbjgjDOpA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: leechcraft by Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@gmail.com>
1 On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@×××××.com> wrote:
2 > 2017-01-31 3:22 GMT-05:00 David Seifert <soap@g.o>:
3 >> Proxy-maint has always been there, so no real excuse for all those bugs
4 >> rotting away.
5 >
6 > I didn't bother with finding another maint who'd proxy it for me,
7 > yeah, that's my bad.
8 >
9 >
10 >> Here's the deal: If you fix all those bugs within the 30
11 >> day time period, we'll keep it in the tree. Please also modernize the
12 >> eclass a bit, and preferably drop all ebuilds to unstable.
13 >
14 > I'll make a new release of leechcraft itself and bump the version to
15 > that new one, so they'll naturally be dropped to unstable, 0.6.70 and
16 > earlier (if any) indeed could be removed. Most of the bugs, as I saw
17 > them, are due to the current last released version being 2.5 years old
18 > and obviously bitrotten somewhat since then.
19 >
20 > The ebuilds I have around use multibuild to build both qt4 and qt5
21 > versions according to use flags. Is that still relevant, or the world
22 > has migrated to qt5 and the benefit of still supporting qt4 is not
23 > worth the effort and clumsiness?
24
25 Yeah, drop qt4 please.
26
27 Thanks,
28 Davide