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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-25355-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1IBfwa-0005gr-Un for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:02:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6K00Org029569; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:00:24 GMT Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6JNw6QQ025424 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:58:06 GMT Received: from TesterServ.TesterNet ([70.83.102.151]) by VL-MO-MR003.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JLG00IO3AKHL310@VL-MO-MR003.ip.videotron.ca> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uucp by TesterServ.TesterNet with local-rmail (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <tester@gentoo.org>) id 1IBfsX-0004O0-5g for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:57:53 -0400 Received: by localhost.tester.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EBD0E4A4038; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:57:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:57:38 +0100 From: Olivier =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cr=EAte?= <tester@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols In-reply-to: <1184883729.8459.22.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <1184889458.19155.2.camel@localhost> Organization: Gentoo Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-uFJ+gm3VZk6tuRBP9Qla" References: <b21328ed0707182131o722bd625o6c8119a4b084c57f@mail.gmail.com> <469F3A9F.7030004@gentoo.org> <1184864002.8459.4.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <200707191909.10542.arfrever.fta@gmail.com> <20070719200201.7369a07e@snowflake> <b21328ed0707191439k2d56e160he42f66b5671b8178@mail.gmail.com> <20070719160251.20a3803c@sed-192.sedsystems.ca> <1184883729.8459.22.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> X-Archives-Salt: 449f2830-9692-45c3-8c98-b40a08072c32 X-Archives-Hash: d48385e2c20bb522214710925345dfbe --=-uFJ+gm3VZk6tuRBP9Qla Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2007-19-07 at 15:22 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 16:02 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote: > > I'm all for doing it now in the profile, but it's not my package. > > Perhaps someone from the net-im herd can make this decision? >=20 > Well, as someone who spends a lot of time working on/with profiles, I > say go for it. Since these changes would only affect the one package > and wouldn't pull in any "strange" dependencies on people, we should > probably do it as high in the profile structure as possible (base? > default-linux?) so it hits the most users. >=20 > I'd like to hear from net-im, as they're ultimately responsible, but I > don't really see the harm in doing it, so we probably should as it will > reduce headaches for our users. Talking with my net-im hat, I'd say go for it.. Except for silc and zephyr (which may or may not work very well) and should probably stay off. --=20 Olivier Cr=C3=AAte tester@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer --=-uFJ+gm3VZk6tuRBP9Qla 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) iD8DBQBGn/ptHTiOWk7ZorsRAlaDAJ0Y88nLat6wuGeO5nh4SUOmZ3sSPgCeNnGo D9asHtgTckMFNKcLz/xxU0g= =f9pm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-uFJ+gm3VZk6tuRBP9Qla-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list