| 1 |
On Friday 24 February 2006 10:49, Grobian wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't really understand your (over) reaction here. But alas. |
| 3 |
Er, I just said that we discussed that back with kito iirc, about not adding |
| 4 |
to the tree more ebuilds until the situation is cleared up. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I don't think anyone implied that we should do that immediately. I was |
| 7 |
> just asking for opinions. Not sure how I want to do it in the end. |
| 8 |
I was just remembering which kind of problems you/we have to cope with ;) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> True. Defenitely a better place for it. Problem remains with the |
| 11 |
> package still on micro level, that it "provides" qt somehow. |
| 12 |
A (versioned) virtual/qt wouldn't be a bad idea; remains the problem that many |
| 13 |
things requires to use _X11_ Qt (especially for Qt3), so deps has to be |
| 14 |
tweaked carefully. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ |
| 18 |
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives