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 1RDc64-0005yH-Pv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:10:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53B0621C1CC for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E69C21C12E for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (balkh.flp.tu-berlin.de [130.149.113.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A251B1B4029 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E943C7D.1030501@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:54:21 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110902 Firefox/6.0 SeaMonkey/2.3.1 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] Re: Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush References: <4E900E3E.2070202@gentoo.org> <4E905C48.20008@gentoo.org> <20111008151336.GN704@gentoo.org> <4E906D3B.2090200@gentoo.org> <20111010210043.4b31d55e@gentoo.org> <4E93EEF4.6090907@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4E93EEF4.6090907@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a984281f6d8a4f5682c23e4a244b20cf Markos Chandras schrieb: >> 3) Maintainers (and upstreams) are not always responsive. The bug >> was opened in February and wasn't really worked on until recently. > It is a bit of surprise all this talking for a bug that went > unattended for 9 months isn't it? O:) It is like people want open bugs > and rotten packages around :). There was no indication 9 months ago that this bug is so bad that the package would be removed if not fixed. Masking the package is ok if it is totally broken or violates policy. Removal when the maintainer is explicitly against it is not ok. Packages have bugs. If it is a bug that affects a small number of users in a minor way and there is no easy fix, then the bug will get less attention than one that affects many users in a serious way. Live with it= . Best regards, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n