From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JagM4-0001dX-P8 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:04:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0D4CE0767; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C32E0767 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (c-67-171-150-177.hsd1.or.comcast.net [67.171.150.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2DA65A86 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:03:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:03:56 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] net-libs/xulrunner-1.9 slotting or not? Message-ID: <20080316000355.GB6852@comet> References: <47DBF558.7030705@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47DBF558.7030705@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 45650087-7fc2-444c-97bc-0a1bae105ad9 X-Archives-Hash: 945a6d80877abe0f07a9b86606766ed4 On 17:12 Sat 15 Mar , Ra=FAl Porcel wrote: > That's what i would like to hear opinions about. Should we slot it, or=20 > should we not slot it and wait until all the apps are fixed? Favoring upstream's approach seems to better fit the Gentoo way. If=20 upstream doesn't intend it to be slotted, neither should we. Thanks, Donnie --=20 gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list