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

Reply via email to