On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:47:28AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>>>> I'd suggest depreciating kronolith1 and forcing people on to >>>> kronolith2, whcih although only a little better, is actually >>>> supported upstream. >>> The problem is that kronolith2 depends on version 3 of the horde >>> framework (rather than version 2), that the two versions of horde >>> cannot meaningfully cooperate and there are still some horde2 >>> applications that have not been ported to horde3. Basically, >>> upstream has abandoned horde2 before they ported all their OWN >>> code to horde3. >>> So dropping horde2 is a regression, which explains why we haven't >>> done it yet. But I'm toying with the idea, as we cannot >>> meaningfully support it anyway. Ola, your opinion? >> If kronolith1 (named kronolith) can not be fixed, and is not >> supported at all by upstream I think we should drop it. > It seems to be removed already. Yes, that story spurred us into requesting removal from unstable of the whole horde2 suite. This still leaves the security update to stable, though. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
