| 1 |
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:17:04 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o> posted |
| 5 |
> 20090215212907.00a735b9@g.o, excerpted below, on Sun, 15 Feb |
| 6 |
> 2009 21:29:07 +0100: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > +# Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o> (15 Feb 2009) |
| 9 |
> > +# Masking for removal in 30 days. |
| 10 |
> > +# Fails to build with gcc-4.3, bug 250712 |
| 11 |
> > +media-video/gephex |
| 12 |
> > + |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Shouldn't there be a bit more to it than that, something about it |
| 15 |
> being maintainer-needed, or maintainer unwilling to work on it |
| 16 |
> further, or upstream dead, or some combination of the above? Just |
| 17 |
> because it doesn't compile with the latest GCC isn't normally |
| 18 |
> considered reason in itself to remove a package. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Also note that there's a "new" (April, 2007) version 0.4.4, on the |
| 21 |
> site, that may work better with newer gcc than the 2005 version 0.4.3 |
| 22 |
> that's the latest in our tree. So maybe it well could be |
| 23 |
> maintainer-needed, but that should be in the masking for removal |
| 24 |
> reason, if so, and ideally, listed in the last rites announcement |
| 25 |
> here, in case anyone's interested in taking a look at it. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> That said, I don't have any particular interest in it, so I don't |
| 28 |
> have a problem with it disappearing. I just found the ONLY reason |
| 29 |
> given an uncommon enough reason for removal on its own that it |
| 30 |
> warranted comment, is all. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
read the bug. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 37 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 38 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives