Markos Chandras posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100 as excerpted: > On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer. >> I could have sworn that was written down somewhere. >> > Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the > timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the > remaining broken packages will be gone. Are you seriously proposing that libpng 1.5 should follow a six-month- hard-masked before unmasking to ~arch and 18-month-to-stable (total, including the hard-mask time) timeline? Because that's the sort of timeline you're comparing against. What's the rush, again, especially if it can't be stabilized anyway for another nine months? 30 days doesn't look so long against that after all, does it? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
