On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 22:55 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason
to mask
Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
We (gnome) are not going to maintain gtk+-1. We would very much prefer
it get removed. If some other person or group wants to maintain it, I
guess it's fine with me; it will only cause Jakub and company headaches
for re-assigning all the bugs that mistakenly get
Alin Nastac wrote:
Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
We (gnome) are not going to maintain gtk+-1. We would very much prefer
it get removed. If some other person or group wants to maintain it, I
guess it's fine with me; it will only cause Jakub and company headaches
for re-assigning all the bugs that
Hello
I think gtk+1 is very important for embedded profile, and It is very useful.
Lorenzo Marussi
Hope you guys aren't seriously considering dropping gtk+1. As long as
we have packages that depend on it (packages that has nothing to do
with gnome herd/team), gtk+1 should stay in the
On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason
to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps.
However I'm still waiting for the
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason
to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps.
However
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:55:00 +0200
Alin Nastac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason
to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps.
However I'm still waiting for the explanation why it is on that list.
(I don't mind if it's masked
Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
I
didn't generate the list, but my understanding was that it was intended
to include all packages with a hard dep on gtk+-1, in addition to gnome
1.x.
Emphasis on the first sentence below..
Saleem Abdulrasool wrote:
GTK+-1 and glib-1 will not be removed at this
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 03:23:42 +
Saleem Abdulrasool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Description:
GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary complexity to the Gentoo GNOME
developers' workload. Some of the contributing factors are
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 03:23:19AM +, Saleem Abdulrasool wrote:
Please do NOT reply to this message with a reason why package X should not be
masked. If you feel strongly about a package, please port it to GTK+-2 and
submit patches on a new bug.
x11-wm/sawfish
This should say
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 22:48 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Saleem Gnome Team,
I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
-user and in the forums (and one of you should
Hi all,
# Sorry for being inactive for a while, I lost my development box due to
# HDD crash several months ago ;(
At Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:10:37 +0100,
Marius Mauch wrote:
Could you provide the script that generated those lists (or was it done
manually)? I'm not so sure that it is accurate, at
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:10:37 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 03:23:42 +
Saleem Abdulrasool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Description:
GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary complexity to
Description:
GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary complexity to the Gentoo GNOME
developers' workload. Some of the contributing factors are security
vulnerabilities, as-needed fixes, and general breakages over time due
Saleem Gnome Team,
I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
-user and in the forums (and one of you should probably blog before the
fact as well).
Thanks,
--
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Saleem Gnome Team,
I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
-user and in the forums (and one of you should probably blog before the
fact as well).
Thanks,
GWN, #gentoo,
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Saleem Gnome Team,
I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
-user and in the forums (and one of you should probably blog before the
fact as well).
Thanks,
Agreed. Can the
18 matches
Mail list logo
