On 11/02/2013 07:12 PM, yac wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:57:34 +
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2013 05:55 PM, yac wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
>>> enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
>>> with eg. b
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 20:12 +0100, yac wrote:
> c6 indicates xarchiver will break on unrar-5 when it will go stable but
> it still is not stable, is it? Given the way this issue is
> communicated, I have to ask - Is it even true? The rar major version
> seems to be related to rar format version rat
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:57:34 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 05:55 PM, yac wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
> > enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
> > with eg. bind package which is constantly rewritten
On 11/02/2013 05:55 PM, yac wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
> enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
> with eg. bind package which is constantly rewritten and constantly have
> security issues?
>
> The same goes for closing b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
with eg. bind package which is constantly rewritten and constantly have
security issues?
The same goes for closing bugs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Markos Chandras (02 Nov 2013)
# On behalf of Treecleaners
# Upstream started a complete rewrite of the package
# meaning that existing bugs will not be fixed by future
# version bumps of the existing code.
# It is unclear when/if the new code will
