[gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-java/avalon-logkit-bin
+# Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] (28 Feb 2007) +# Deprecated in favor of dev-java/avalon-logkit that +# is built from source +dev-java/avalon-logkit-bin + Will be removed one month from now. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:24:15PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 10:43 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:31 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: Andrej Kacian wrote: It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes should go last, along with gtk1 itself. Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? Point, set, and match. Much as I hate gtk1, I agree with this. Leave the themes as long as they're working and there's apps. I'm just curious, but why? It's not like people can't get GTK+ themes themselves quite easily. Personally, I don't think we should have themes (for anything) in the tree except for two cases: #1. The theme is considered part of an upstream package set, fex. if GNOME or KDE ship with a small set of themes, they should be included #2. The themes are made by Gentoo For anything else, let the user download what they want and use it as they see fit. There's not much reason to track them in the package manager. That being said, I'm not opposed to the themes staying in the tree, either. I'm just trying to find out people's motivations for either keeping them/removing them. Those are theme-engines and not just a few pixmaps and with an rc file. The main part of those engines are compiled libraries. Don't treat them like a few files the user just has to copy in his homedir. Christian PS: please stop those weekly attempts to remove Gtk1 from the tree. Not everyone is using Gnome or KDE and lots of smaller dockapps and similar tools are Gtk1 and work perfectly fine. (Yes, this was a rant and it's my personal opinion) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages requiring explicit db versions?
There is one use-case that I am aware of against removing old versions of 4.*, but I haven't seen it in the tree for a while - other folk might be more aware of it: Ability to take DB files from other systems and read them sanely / migrate them to new versions. Yep, subversion comes to mind on this one. Though, this isn't forcing anyone to uninstall their db versions, but simply removing them from the portage. Granted, it does make it more difficult to migrate db version backends, but since the ebuilds in question will be available from the CVS attic on cvsweb, I think the benefit outweighs the harm in removing them. Here's a set of stuff of everything that looks for a specific version of 4.*. Thanks for this list. It seems that the removal of 4.0* and 4.1* are probably okay, based on this information. I imagine we'll go through a normal 30 day package.mask/removal procedure when the time comes. Caleb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] keywording wordpress
Wordpress has had a few security issues lately, so I'm dropping all stable keywords on affected arches (amd64, hppa, ppc, sparc, x86). See security bugs 163817, 168449, 168529. Sorry for the inconvenience. Feel free to add it to your package.keywords file in /etc/portage if you want to keep using it. Thanks Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for net-irc/nikibot
# Matti Bickel [EMAIL PROTECTED] (28 Feb 2007) # Fails to compile against lua-5.1.1, no upstream release for 3 years # net-irc/nikibot If i'm mistaken and someone needs it urgently, please give it some love. Otherwise it will vanish in 30 days. -- MfG, Matti Bickel Homepage: http://www.rateu.de Encrypted/Signed Email preferred pgpppkRAQmjae.pgp Description: PGP signature
