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 version
_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 with a
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
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 the
-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 that
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, and
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 get from
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
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 stable
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 poking
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 same
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 going out
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 kind
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
-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-
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
Also
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 we
can
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 message.
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, don't we :)
-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.
Any
-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-
Version:
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
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, than
-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 of
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
-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
Available
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 dropping it
27 matches
Mail list logo
