From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25253 invoked by uid 1002); 20 Oct 2003 04:29:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 14324 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 04:29:21 -0000 X-WM-Posted-At: mailandnews.com; Mon, 20 Oct 03 00:29:20 -0400 From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:38:30 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <1066617251.991.5.camel@sfa237013.richmond.edu> <20031020032034.GA29403@emu.gentoo.org> <200310200416.14653.luke-jr@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200310200416.14653.luke-jr@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="shift_jis" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310201238.30424.jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Patches and the 2.4->2.6 move X-Archives-Salt: 643f5c1d-0b0b-49f3-a52f-a5ff8684d394 X-Archives-Hash: 1cebdef8095a2b8bf0d79cac875f4731 On Monday 20 October 2003 13:16, Luke-Jr wrote: > I was thinking that once 2.6.0 was final, the kernel people would > (hopefully) release a gentoo-sources using 2.6 in unstable... If this is > not the case, would anyone mind if love-sources were to be added to the > portage tree or is there any reason not to? love-sources is the work of two people who both have fairly little time to devote to the numerous bug reports coming from the relatively small number of users using it. If it were added to portage (even if it was masked in packages.mask) the number of bug reports would be ridiculous. I suggest that it should not be added unless it becomes more than just a hobby for the maintainers. Regards, Jason -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list