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 4.54) id 1F3mwE-00034H-LB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:16:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k0V4FbQE027731; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:15:37 GMT Received: from cs.ubishops.ca (CS.ubishops.ca [206.167.194.132]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0V4DlMA030561 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:13:48 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.5] (toronto-HSE-ppp4024376.sympatico.ca [70.48.118.194]) by cs.ubishops.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AA43A7A1 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:13:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43DEE3F9.30108@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:13:45 -0500 From: Patrick McLean <chutzpah@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060112) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X References: <43D5D1E4.9020801@gentoo.org> <200601252118.28410.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <43D87585.2000206@gentoo.org> <200601261626.15067.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <43D87EFB.5080505@gentoo.org> <20060131024137.GA19351@aerie.halcy0n.com> In-Reply-To: <20060131024137.GA19351@aerie.halcy0n.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6171fd5e-5d58-4fa6-8892-4c1c6a46768a X-Archives-Hash: 45cb3c666af230f21683ae52764225bf Mark Loeser wrote: > Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> said: >> Jason Stubbs wrote: >>> The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed. >> Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we're failing on them, perhaps we can >> say "obsolete" instead of "deprecated"? > > Can we put this back to being a warning? It makes things a pain for arch > teams that are trying to mark a completely unrelated version of the package. > Agreed, this makes keywording packages that have old, non-ported versions still floating around very difficult. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list