From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hn2qH-0004go-3G for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 13 May 2007 01:25:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4D1Oi28020343; Sun, 13 May 2007 01:24:44 GMT Received: from spaceymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (sd-green-bigip-208-97-132-66.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.66]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4D1Mg7W017954 for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 01:22:42 GMT Received: from [172.16.1.36] (adsl-68-121-18-151.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net [68.121.18.151]) by spaceymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04891062EC for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 18:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ion license From: Peter Gordon To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20070513011955.01ffdbba@snowflake> References: <20070512221357.GA6264@pluto.local> <20070513011955.01ffdbba@snowflake> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-WdKyq3NJpZkflUNrXTjW" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 18:22:41 -0700 Message-Id: <1179019361.18262.2.camel@tuxhugs> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 (2.10.1-4.fc7) X-Archives-Salt: 2cbc9cd9-71c2-4efb-8c5e-9ad17d33bb63 X-Archives-Hash: b07756c25b9ae5c75ae344f2767c71dd --=-WdKyq3NJpZkflUNrXTjW Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as > a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main > tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning > telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those > packages. Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was renamed to, et al. --=20 Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF & EFF Member Gentoo Forums Global Moderator GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ --=-WdKyq3NJpZkflUNrXTjW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGRmhdQmjLev/BlHkRAj1GAKCKt0292Z2+7TCHe/O21v6FRNM8/QCfd/nu 0VrBT/eTODE4AtZ6hNBSFYc= =h5P1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-WdKyq3NJpZkflUNrXTjW-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list