Juliusz Chroboczek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. That was just a way of pointing out that other revision control
systems do not have such complex build dependencies.
*cough*
% export USE=doc gtk iconv perl subversion bash-completion cgi curl cvs
emacs mozsha1 ppcsha1 threads tk vim-syntax
Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd just like to point out (again ;-) ) than it's not that hard to
support older platforms. The only constraint is that people not squeal
at the sight of bundled code. The bundling can be done in such a way
that it's not a maintenance burden, indeed it
Jason Dagit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian is nice in some ways and it's really great that stable lives up
to its name, but I am sad that Debian has such old software for so
long.
Those two properties are strongly correlated.
There is backports.org for cases where you want to cherry-pick a
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:11:22PM +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Thus I think the version/upgrade matrix is handy so we can
plan/schedule when it is safe to drop support.
In an ideal world, we just make sure it builds with the latest
tools, and
Trent W. Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:39:28PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Trent W. Buck writes:
In an ideal world, we just make sure it builds with the latest tools,
and let the users of stable distros worry about telling us if it
breaks against
