On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 01:27:17 CEST Jimi Huotari wrote:
> I'd certainly be fine with this, and 'app-admin/system-tools-backends',
> which is next on my list to go, to be assigned to maintainer-wanted
> instead of being removed.
Looking at the linked bug, the package was doomed in 2016,
On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 00:23:44 CEST Peter Stuge wrote:
> Jimi Huotari wrote:
> > # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04)
> > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> > # Removal in 30 days.
> > dev-libs/liboobs
>
> Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\
>
>
On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 22:23 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Jimi Huotari wrote:
> > # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04)
> > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> > # Removal in 30 days.
> > dev-libs/liboobs
>
> Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\
>
> Why
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:23:44 +
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Jimi Huotari wrote:
> > # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04)
> > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> > # Removal in 30 days.
> > dev-libs/liboobs
>
> Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\
>
>
Jimi Huotari wrote:
> # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04)
> # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> # Removal in 30 days.
> dev-libs/liboobs
Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\
Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem?
(Security,
# Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04)
# No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
# Removal in 30 days.
dev-libs/liboobs
pgpT_PzXQrZDg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
