On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:10:37 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 03:23:42 +0000 > Saleem Abdulrasool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Description: > > GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers. > > Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary complexity to the Gentoo > > GNOME developers' workload. Some of the contributing factors are > > security vulnerabilities, as-needed fixes, and general breakages > > over time due to lower level package changes. > > > > Resolution: > > The GNOME herd has decided to remove GNOME 1.x and its dependent > > packages from the tree. GTK+-1 and glib-1 will not be removed at > > this time however. Effective a week from this message (15/11/2006), > > the attached package list will be masked for 30 days and then the > > packages will be removed from the tree on (15/12/2006). > > > > How to dispute the resolution: > > 1) You can comment on bug #154102, OR > > 2) Contact the GNOME herd on freenode in #gentoo-desktop, OR > > 3) Email the herd lead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Please do NOT reply to this message with a reason why package X > > should not be masked. If you feel strongly about a package, please > > port it to GTK+-2 and submit patches on a new bug. > > Could you provide the script that generated those lists (or was it > done manually)? I'm not so sure that it is accurate, at least I can't > see why <sylpheed-claws-2 is in the list (the only relevant > unconditional dep is gtk-1). Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps. However I'm still waiting for the explanation why it is on that list. (I don't mind if it's masked for a good reason, but I need to know that reason). Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
