On Monday 03 April 2006 01:54, Daniel Goller wrote:
> you are really trying hard to get gtk(1)
Everyone as s/he likes. I favor the deprecation of the gtk2 flag and start
dancing on my chair, once we have a Portage version with slot/use depends in
arch. But this is a completely different topic: K
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 01:17 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> > Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
> > simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
> > 2.0 .
>
> Why didn't you file (Gentoo) securi
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:53 +0200, foser wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:43 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Delaying GNOME-2.14 for non-GNOME packages using gtk2 USE flag is mildly
> > funny to me, too.
>
> These two things are not related, 2.14 is not delayed whatsoever.
> Jakub's call was just
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
> simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
> 2.0 .
Why didn't you file (Gentoo) security bugs? Perfect reason to drop Gtk1
support, if no one steps up to
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:43 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Delaying GNOME-2.14 for non-GNOME packages using gtk2 USE flag is mildly
> funny to me, too.
These two things are not related, 2.14 is not delayed whatsoever.
Jakub's call was just to get attention to the bugs and didn't originate
from the
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
> I don't think gtk 1 will leave the tree soon, but at least we can try to
> make it unneeded on most users systems.
I would just give my 2 eurocents about this, although I originally wasn't so
keen on having gtk2 useflag dropped entirely.
gtk 1.2 has a
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the "lets
> remove
> packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one
Sure it does, in my experience unmaintained packages tend to depend on
unmaintained
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
> future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider was
> The Man, so i guess people forgot about that
That was never the case. We actually
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 23:20 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
> >>> "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... i
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> lets apply the same logic to all things unmaintained !
Yes, that's one reason I am so annoyed of the unmaintained parts of the tree.
> besides, you're talking about removing GTK1 completely ... this thread is
> talking about deprecating the g
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
>>> "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it
>>> benefits no one
>> No bugs filed? Well, just search the
On Sunday 02 April 2006 16:09, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting
> > > Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc..
> >
> > and when such a situation arises, the solution may to simp
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 10:00:25PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van D??k wrote:
> > Others did speak up at that time. The result:
> >
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641
>
> Yeah, that was the one and only single voice.
On gentoo-d
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
> future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider
> was The Man, so i guess people forgot about that
No, see the whole thread Harald references
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
> > "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it
> > benefits no one
>
> No bugs filed? Well, just search the archives of this ML, an
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Others did speak up at that time. The result:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641
Yeah, that was the one and only single voice.
Carsten
pgplFkefqq6Ma.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 09:12:28PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term,
> so
> blaming Olivier for usin
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
"lets remove
> packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it benefits no one
No bugs filed? Well, just search the archives of this ML, and search
bugzilla for all those bugs about portage pulling in
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:12, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term,
> so blaming Olivier for using it is a bit od
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony
On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term, so
blaming Olivier for using it is a bit odd), but what we (can and want to)
support. Wouldn't it have
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
have been lasting for half a y
On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> > > have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* n
On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> > have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
>
> too bad it doesnt address packages which s
On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize gtk/gtk2
i for one wont be "fixing" thes
This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
For affected ebuilds, please see the attached list and Bug 106560.
Thanks.
--
jakub
app-crypt/pinentry-0.7.2
app-editors/mp-3.3.12
app-editors/mp-3.3.14
app-
26 matches
Mail list logo
