| 1 |
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:47:58 +0800 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 02/10/2013 05:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 5 |
> > # Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> (10 Feb 2013) |
| 6 |
> > # Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with |
| 7 |
> > # boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old |
| 8 |
> > # version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659). |
| 9 |
> > # Removal in a month. |
| 10 |
> > sci-visualization/paraview |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we remove |
| 13 |
> packages now, remove features from other packages because of that |
| 14 |
> (openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Somehow this appears not well thought out to me. Would anyone be |
| 17 |
> terribly upset if I started pillaging this silly overlay? (And any other |
| 18 |
> overlays that look like they are fun) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
+1. If you can't manage moving/updating your packages properly |
| 21 |
and on-time from the sci overlay, please get rid of it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Best regards, |
| 25 |
Michał Górny |
Archives