From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUW7V-0003uB-I6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:04:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D15EE08F5 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37785E069C for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:00:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0C10jTa076240 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:00:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:00:40 +0100 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-nntp/inn Message-ID: <20100112020040.79c7f1ae@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <201001111731.09331.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <201001112305.16532.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <201001111731.09331.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.3 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 0bc6c6a7-6a20-40f3-a375-e5c32e2ca721 X-Archives-Hash: 9d02b1497c56db8a999f7ca211180900 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:31:08 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 11 January 2010 16:05:16 Markos Chandras wrote: > > # Markos Chandras (11 Jan 2010) > > # Fails with -Wl,--as-needed > > # bug #182782. Removal in 30 days > > net-nntp/inn > > is as-needed support really a valid reason for punting a package ? i > dont think it is. Bad research - he simply lists the wrong reason. Lack of maintainer attention would have been a better description. The bug in question should have been closed and kept closed long ago, so the 2.5 years mentioned on the bug is wrong as well... I'm looking into this now. jer