Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> writes: > On 2015/12/15 22:04, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: >> Tinker <ti...@openmailbox.org> writes: >> >> > What would the decision be based on? >> >> I think that those points should be enough. >> - good reasons to use ICU in boost, not just "I need the ICU parts of >> Boost.". What would be the benefit for the ports tree? >> - someone has to do the work, and that includes checking for potential >> breakage. > > And updating WANTLIB :-) > >> > Everyone just rolling thumbs or is there any real tradeoff? >> >> You tell us. ;) > > Also note that this port does have a maintainer.
Duh, indeed. So please also discuss this with Brad. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE