On Friday 24 February 2006 10:49, Grobian wrote:
> I don't really understand your (over) reaction here.  But alas.
Er, I just said that we discussed that back with kito iirc, about not adding 
to the tree more ebuilds until the situation is cleared up.

> I don't think anyone implied that we should do that immediately.  I was
> just asking for opinions.  Not sure how I want to do it in the end.
I was just remembering which kind of problems you/we have to cope with ;)

> True.  Defenitely a better place for it.  Problem remains with the
> package still on micro level, that it "provides" qt somehow.
A (versioned) virtual/qt wouldn't be a bad idea; remains the problem that many 
things requires to use _X11_ Qt (especially for Qt3), so deps has to be 
tweaked carefully.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

Attachment: pgpkyO76KxeaC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to