> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
BdG> On 14 March 2010 06:09, James Cloos wrote:
>>> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
>>
BdG> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree.
>>
>> Nonsense. That attitude only servers to harm the user base.
BdG> You're wrong. It serves to protect o
On 14 March 2010 06:09, James Cloos wrote:
>> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
>
> BdG> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree.
>
> Nonsense. That attitude only servers to harm the user base.
You're wrong. It serves to protect our users from potentially
broken and vulnerable pack
On Sunday 14 of March 2010 06:09:44 James Cloos wrote:
> > "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
> BdG> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree.
>
> Nonsense. That attitude only servers to harm the user base.
>
> Leaving them in does not.
But leaving them broken and unmaintained in ma
> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
BdG> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree.
Nonsense. That attitude only servers to harm the user base.
Leaving them in does not.
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
On Friday 12 March 2010 15:18:21 Robert Bradbury wrote:
> It would appear that the pending (0321) mask of Qt3 will break
> sci-misc/qcad, sci-chemistry/xdrawchem and x11-misc/glunarclock.
>
[..]
>
> Thank you,
> Robert Bradbury
The decision about removing Qt3 has been made 9 months ago, the decis
On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
> consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for
> everyone.
Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree. That's
why we have a treecleaners project.
C
On 12 March 2010 14:18, Robert Bradbury wrote:
> It would appear that the pending (0321) mask of Qt3 will break
> sci-misc/qcad, sci-chemistry/xdrawchem and x11-misc/glunarclock.
The mask has already been in place since March 1st.
> a) Has research been done to determine whether there are replac
On Friday 12 of March 2010 17:17:01 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 12-03-2010 08:46:34 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> > wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> > all disgruntled users and developers
On 12/03/10 17:17, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 12-03-2010 08:46:34 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
>> wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
>> all disgruntled users and developers create a qt3 project
Le vendredi 12 mars 2010 à 16:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit :
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:46:34 -0700
> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>
> [...]
> > That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> > wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> > all disgrun
On 12-03-2010 08:46:34 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> all disgruntled users and developers create a qt3 project and
> adopt/unmask/re-commit the qt3 librarie
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:46:34 -0700
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
[...]
> That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> all disgruntled users and developers create a qt3 project and
> adopt/unmask/re-commit the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Robert Bradbury
wrote:
> It would appear that the pending (0321) mask of Qt3 will break
> sci-misc/qcad, sci-chemistry/xdrawchem and x11-misc/glunarclock.
I'm not concerned but I feel sympathy for those who use these packages
and many others. The decision from the
It would appear that the pending (0321) mask of Qt3 will break
sci-misc/qcad, sci-chemistry/xdrawchem and x11-misc/glunarclock.
These are fairly significant science packages for which there are no current
(qt4) or "equivalent" packages. While on one hand it may not do much harm
to mask Qt3 based
14 matches
Mail list logo