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 1N0e0L-0008DV-Hu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:25:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F7F8E084A; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from petteriraty.eu (host.petteriraty.eu [188.40.80.83]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E084E084A for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.130.46.226] (qob2.kyla.fi [82.130.46.226]) by petteriraty.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29487295CB for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4ADF35FC.50504@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:25:32 +0300 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fi; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090916 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: News item for default-linux removal (bug #287976) References: <4ADF1C84.8030605@gentoo.org> <4ADF2D9D.30604@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4ADF2D9D.30604@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://users.tkk.fi/~praty/public.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig19BFF54E3B34CC97F72F888B" X-Archives-Salt: 5920a0df-0067-4a7c-b93a-9cae54c411cb X-Archives-Hash: 6eb547bfdc901564c0de4b37add649c5 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig19BFF54E3B34CC97F72F888B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Samuli Suominen wrote: > Samuli Suominen wrote: >> For http://bugs.gentoo.org/287976, A news item: >> Would this work? >=20 Does this mean that you haven't tested it? If it's tested with the oldest Portage version that people are expected to be using, then fine by me. I don't think this bug comes to play here as there's only one restriction so on that account should be safe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D277619 Regards, Petteri --------------enig19BFF54E3B34CC97F72F888B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrfNf8ACgkQcxLzpIGCsLROKACfRF9F2LqBxCz6xEN6tCi2TyOm rBIAniIQd+rryvn62km8ffqokBzvQGAB =QYBF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig19BFF54E3B34CC97F72F888B--