| 1 |
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as |
| 3 |
> a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main |
| 4 |
> tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning |
| 5 |
> telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those |
| 6 |
> packages. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus |
| 9 |
far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was |
| 10 |
renamed to, et al. |
| 11 |
-- |
| 12 |
Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF & EFF Member |
| 13 |
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator |
| 14 |
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: |
| 15 |
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 |
| 16 |
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ |
Archives