On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:06:32 +0200
_JusSx_ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a
> bit I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I
> think it's better not to install it...
Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a po
_JusSx_ wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:36:22PM +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
>> net-im/skype in the tree:
>>
>> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
>> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
>> 3- the 1.4 series
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:36:22PM +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
> net-im/skype in the tree:
>
> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
> 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask vers
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Jan Kundrát wrote:
It could be interesting to evaluate a new rule "fetch/mirror restricted
package can't be marked stable" :).
I believe common sense and per-package experience is better than such
general rules :)
Agreed, although I think most people would agree with
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Maybe you could (either when final 1.4 hits ~arch or on 19th) change the
> RESTRICT="mirror" to RESTRICT="fetch" in <1.4 and explain the situation
> in pkg_nofetch() via einfo, telling users they either find the distfile
> themselves (might have it on another computer, or g
Gustavo Felisberto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any alternatives?
Ask Skype/upstream to change their behavior? For either the installer
mirroring or historical-version removal date.
If they're going through the trouble of producing a linux version, they
probably understand how distros work, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Abhay Kedia wrote:
>> I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am
>> not
>> being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to
>> enumerate the issues discussed in this thread
Abhay Kedia wrote:
> I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not
> being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to
> enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal
> of Skype (rather than masking it) from th
On Friday 15 Jun 2007 3:15:28 am Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
> Please ensure you read the entire thread to get a grasp on the issues at
> hand before replying.
>
I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not
being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kin
Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it.
>>
>>
> ...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a
> wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer go
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote:
>
> If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it.
>
...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a
wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer going out and then in again
for the sam
Abhay Kedia wrote:
> Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I
> have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping
> popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like
> to see. This is the only reason I am pokin
On 6/14/07, Abhay Kedia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
> distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
> really questionable if it should be marked s
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
> distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
> really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
>
Then don't mark it stable but droppin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
>> new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
>
> [U] x11-wm/ion3
> Availa
On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
[U] x11-wm/ion3
Available versions: (~)20060326 (~)20061223 (~)20070318-r2 (~)20070506-r1
{doc ion3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> If closed source is the criteria o
Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or
> tree
On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>
If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or
tree, than are we dropping net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> Any alternatives?
>
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
++
Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Versi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
George Shapovalov wrote:
> Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали:
>>> The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
>>> bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
>>> the issue.
>>
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>>> Any alternatives?
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> Said the java dev
>
>
We all use OpenJDK nowadays
Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали:
> > The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
> > bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
> > the issue.
> >
> > Any alternatives?
>
> 3. Mask < 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive m
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> Any alternatives?
>
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>
Said the java dev
Personally, I'd say if upstream doesn't provide downloads, nothing
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 17:36 +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
> net-im/skype in the tree:
>
> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
> 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> Any alternatives?
Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Versio
A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
net-im/skype in the tree:
1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this
will b
27 matches
Mail list logo
