[gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

# Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
# Upstream dropped support for linux time ago (#434390),
# possible security issues (#360539). You can use Windows
# version with PlayOnLinux. Removal in a month.
media-gfx/picasa

# Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
# Abandoned by upstream, problems building (#362611).
# Removal in a month.
dev-python/papyon
net-voip/telepathy-butterfly

# Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
# Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with
# boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old
# version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659).
# Removal in a month.
sci-visualization/paraview

# Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
# Doesn't support kernel >= 2.6.22, #453202. Removal in a month.
x11-misc/xdaf



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Patrick Lauer]

On 02/10/2013 05:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> # Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
> # Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with
> # boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old
> # version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659).
> # Removal in a month.
> sci-visualization/paraview

So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we remove
packages now, remove features from other packages because of that
(openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay?

Somehow this appears not well thought out to me. Would anyone be
terribly upset if I started pillaging this silly overlay? (And any other
overlays that look like they are fun)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:47:58 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 02/10/2013 05:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > # Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
> > # Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with
> > # boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old
> > # version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659).
> > # Removal in a month.
> > sci-visualization/paraview
> 
> So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we remove
> packages now, remove features from other packages because of that
> (openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay?
> 
> Somehow this appears not well thought out to me. Would anyone be
> terribly upset if I started pillaging this silly overlay? (And any other
> overlays that look like they are fun)

+1. If you can't manage moving/updating your packages properly
and on-time from the sci overlay, please get rid of it.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1408 bytes --]

El dom, 10-02-2013 a las 19:47 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
> On 02/10/2013 05:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > # Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
> > # Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with
> > # boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old
> > # version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659).
> > # Removal in a month.
> > sci-visualization/paraview
> 
> So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we remove
> packages now, remove features from other packages because of that
> (openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay?
> 
> Somehow this appears not well thought out to me. Would anyone be
> terribly upset if I started pillaging this silly overlay? (And any other
> overlays that look like they are fun)
> 

That is because looks nobody from sci team has enough time to move
things from sci overlay to the tree (probably because it's being
maintained there by people without commit access). Ideally that people
would become devs with commit rights but, until then, looks like some
packages (usually sci maintained packages) are being maintained better
in overlay than main tree :/

I guess wouldn't be problems on pillaging ebuilds from that overlay to
the tree... but I guess you would be willing to become its maintainer to
update ebuilds from overlay when needed :|

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> +1. If you can't manage moving/updating your packages properly
> and on-time from the sci overlay, please get rid of it.

Seems like the alternative solution is to just not have these ebuilds
in the main tree.

There is nothing wrong with having an overlay that provides a better
experience than the main tree.  Most distros actually operate this way
- just look up your average non-core piece of FOSS software and the
first thing their Ubuntu install instructions will tell you to do is
to add some repository to your list.

I think the main tree can potentially provide a better experience
since it actually gets checked when dependencies are changed.
However, that is only true if somebody is maintaining it.

Pillaging the overlays is fine as long as somebody actually maintains
the package, and it isn't just a one-time copy that resets the clock.
Otherwise, purpose-driven overlays just make sense - they allow a
different set of contributors who are more familiar/interested in a
set of packages to maintain them.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Tomáš Chvátal]

Dne Ne 10. února 2013 19:47:58, Patrick Lauer napsal(a):
> On 02/10/2013 05:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > # Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
> > # Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with
> > # boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old
> > # version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659).
> > # Removal in a month.
> > sci-visualization/paraview
> 
> So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we remove
> packages now, remove features from other packages because of that
> (openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay?

Agreed this is pretty bad idea. The teams should actually have their top 
priority to include user contributions to main tree as much as possible. If 
the team does not have time to maintain the named package, just add some 
contributors as maintainers and do proxy-commits for them...

The greatest problem at least from my PoV is that we can't just simply git am 
loads of stuff users are contributing and must convert to cvs (thats actually 
what takes me most of the time).

Having nice mailinglist where users can contribute simple patches would be 
briliant thing to use :-)

Cheers

Tom

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 10/02/13 12:47, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we 
> remove packages now, remove features from other packages because of
>  that (openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay?
> 
> Somehow this appears not well thought out to me.
+1

On 10/02/13 13:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with having an overlay that provides a
> better experience than the main tree.  Most distros actually
> operate this way
Most distros aren't very good.

> - just look up your average non-core piece of FOSS software and the
>  first thing their Ubuntu install instructions will tell you to do
> is to add some repository to your list.
And the second search result is the Ubuntu troubleshooting broken
installs as a result of adding other repositories.

I accept that there may exist reasons for using overlays. "Ubuntu do
it!" is not one.


- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlEXl8QACgkQRtClrXBQc7UKOAD+P7mFavgADIecwTm5jKLEnbq/
h81FRf2qbvwf54X6T9YA/RJ4y1EAesZOvxvpuIVTEKpLwcTipgWJZeExzWReAn/7
=po4x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen
<alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:
>
> On 10/02/13 13:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> - just look up your average non-core piece of FOSS software and the
>>  first thing their Ubuntu install instructions will tell you to do
>> is to add some repository to your list.
> And the second search result is the Ubuntu troubleshooting broken
> installs as a result of adding other repositories.
>
> I accept that there may exist reasons for using overlays. "Ubuntu do
> it!" is not one.

I have mixed feelings on this.  I'd never advocate doing anything
simply because everybody else is doing it - if I wanted to use Ubuntu
I'd be using Ubuntu.

There are pros/cons to overlays right now:
Pros include:
1.  More flexible maintenance model.  The overlay maintainer can
choose who has access to it.  They don't have to worry about people
making tree-wide commits without knowing what they're doing, because
any damage is contained to the overlay (though obviously any package
in an overlay could mess with anything on a user's system).

2.  More flexible QA model.  Usually that means less QA, which has its
own pros and cons, but it /could/ actually mean more QA, or just
different QA.  Right now we have no way of communicating to users
(beyond masks) that packages vary in quality level, and overlays could
be a way to accomplish this.  You could also have a set of related
overlays that provide a dev/test/stable experience.

Cons include:
1.  No relationship to the tree.  If somebody messes with one of your
dependencies they will not take any care not to break your package.

2.  Non-mainstream experience.  Because Gentoo tends to be
overlay-averse, most users don't use them at all.

3.  No real organization.  Beyond an entry in the layman list there
really isn't any systematic tracking of overlays and their
quality/etc.  We don't "grade" overlays or anything like that.

#1 is the biggest con I'd say.  It is made worse by the fact that we
don't have a main repository QA cycle (I'm not suggesting we have
one).  For something like Ubuntu anybody maintaining a 3rd party
repository can monitor the release cycle and test against the new
dependency versions before they are released and be ready on day one.
For Gentoo you would have to pay very close attention to bugzilla,
lists, irc, and perhaps even mail aliases (not open to the public) to
have any idea that some change is about to happen to one of your
dependencies if you aren't in the main tree.

A fix for #1 might be some way to allow external parties to register
interest in upcoming changes and get alerted.  Then those changing
libs could just trigger the alerts (and that system might also file
bugs against in-tree packages to request testing).  We obviously
wouldn't consider any outside overlays blockers, but we could be nicer
to them.  Of course, that takes work and I'm skeptical that this would
ever happen.

So, those are just my thoughts on overlays.  I don't think they're a
bad thing.  However, there are some things about Gentoo that make them
less practical than on other distros.  I won't argue that you get the
best possible experience if the package is in the tree AND IT IS
MAINTAINED.  The problem is that in a volunteer-based organization the
second half of that is hard to guarantee.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Tomáš Chvátal]

Dne Ne 10. února 2013 13:51:16, Alexander Berntsen napsal(a):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 10/02/13 12:47, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we
> > remove packages now, remove features from other packages because of
> > 
> >  that (openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay?
> > 
> > Somehow this appears not well thought out to me.
> 
> +1
> 
> On 10/02/13 13:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with having an overlay that provides a
> > better experience than the main tree.  Most distros actually
> > operate this way
> 
> Most distros aren't very good.
> 
> > - just look up your average non-core piece of FOSS software and the
> > 
> >  first thing their Ubuntu install instructions will tell you to do
> > 
> > is to add some repository to your list.
> 
> And the second search result is the Ubuntu troubleshooting broken
> installs as a result of adding other repositories.
> 
> I accept that there may exist reasons for using overlays. "Ubuntu do
> it!" is not one.
> 
Don't worry,
no matter what are Richs opinions he is not the one crating global policies 
for this, so the defaults still are that we encourage adding all stuff to main 
tree where possible. Even the overlays are supposed to be just plaingrounds 
where we train upcoming devs, or pose as live ebuild/huge experimantal changes 
storage space.

Even the excuse that it is not maintained so it is to stay in overlay is 
false, because when somebody mess with the package in overlay they can became 
maintainers in the main tree too without much fuzz.

But I suppose this problem is created simply because people not wanting to 
work with cvs (and I purely agree that git workflow is much easier wrt 
this)...

Cheers

Tom

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/10/2013 10:01 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> # Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013) # Fails with
> gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with # boost
> (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old # version
> in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659). #
> Removal in a month. sci-visualization/paraview
> 

"people should move to sci overlay one"?

Why is it not in the tree? Pointing people to overlays is wrong imo.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRF7HdAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzdekH/0sOPq8riBUlRtfDnLWAuf4J
7md3b0KBg9sP0RZWJsAZdK/N5Zs37iJWXF+L9LAr4wmil8IwxazEMWC3xMu8Dh4E
cXIfVVgLWz8C/VW0wQBUX3jo7fr4B0gLKWdRZ6axgPdTV3pIqz6cpzsbbtb4ls+L
XteKqDHhQxfZ2vjtkImVcux4wBBZEWZX/Do+21WfC6WWbk9Q5udmrcxCpLTMl84O
G/Ia5rfwWiHtIpDzY0PBJgFnTkyfbKlas1hSDYybLDO+Tr1F6YRN3nmFWLFeBPVY
NqhGLHnyvWApSJ+qkjb2bszWHs3GVLYDec+W81R8mgO4c/hYugeoKXS6YBhTPNc=
=9xsA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Tomáš Chvátal <tomas.chvatal@gmail.com> wrote:
> no matter what are Richs opinions he is not the one crating global policies
> for this, so the defaults still are that we encourage adding all stuff to main
> tree where possible.

Relax, and don't make it personal.

The bottom line is that some encourage putting stuff in the tree, and
others like to work from overlays.  No developer is going to get
banned for working on an overlay on the side.

In the end packages in the tree will be better maintained if
developers step up and maintain them, and packages in an overlay will
be better maintained if developers step up and maintain them.
Anything else is just flames on the lists.

I never claimed to speak for a majority, and the only time I concern
myself with majority opinion is when following policies or voting as a
trustee.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/10/2013 12:47 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:> Would anyone be
> Would anyone be terribly upset if I started pillaging this silly
> overlay? (And any other overlays that look like they are fun)
> 

Go ahead, I will help you.


On 02/10/2013 12:59 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> 
> That is because looks nobody from sci team has enough time to move 
> things from sci overlay to the tree (probably because it's being 
> maintained there by people without commit access).

I take that as a free card to add myself to the sci herd.


As for the overlay discussion, there should only be two reasons to
have ebuilds in a seperate overlay: they depend on dropped packages or
they are unsupportable (e.g. because they are in early alpha stage or
broken in some ways).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRF7czAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz4gsH/jpvNiLpVKrnLM2T2lwS1oFx
uvrfBbBgX6ROEF0aQ6Um8GnJFqMkpW76O7R9hVHoF1ZMISh7iTQKw8eBMMKj/3ib
1O2kgUB6Y4yMXvZrq9RM7BJzupTQp8qdMMaozf8sJ34DhGKMVS8xRHWrgkJRq8FD
ZL/tbImEVDd97IazDLXPUxN77shvo2oYHOd9peiI9aVRWti72Kyzg8M6cxQ5ek33
ahLfeNpjw+Bg+k16WM6Fi0v9H64hSOSeeZzwaBoaAO0w3JlTx8ch2/8OBPFSg6gF
2aS3DoIG1K7JR1i+LLJ2x2sPUWPjPKcDlknGuNkZ2HlTP3gZziZusclboy/NjGI=
=LGQV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 820 bytes --]

El dom, 10-02-2013 a las 16:05 +0100, hasufell escribió:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 02/10/2013 12:47 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:> Would anyone be
> > Would anyone be terribly upset if I started pillaging this silly
> > overlay? (And any other overlays that look like they are fun)
> > 
> 
> Go ahead, I will help you.
> 
> 
> On 02/10/2013 12:59 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > 
> > That is because looks nobody from sci team has enough time to move 
> > things from sci overlay to the tree (probably because it's being 
> > maintained there by people without commit access).
> 
> I take that as a free card to add myself to the sci herd.
> 

That would be nice as, looking to some of its assigned bugs, it needs
help on maintaining the lot of packages included there.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Ben de Groot]

On 10 February 2013 20:11, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Otherwise, purpose-driven overlays just make sense - they allow a
> different set of contributors who are more familiar/interested in a
> set of packages to maintain them.

It makes more sense to let those people be proxy-maintainers and keep
those packages in the main tree.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Peter Stuge]

Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Having nice mailinglist where users can contribute simple patches
> would be briliant thing to use :-)

That's still a waste of time compared to gerrit. You should look at
it if you don't know it already.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Peter Stuge]

hasufell wrote:
> there should only be two reasons to have ebuilds in a seperate
> overlay: they depend on dropped packages or they are unsupportable
> (e.g. because they are in early alpha stage or broken in some ways).

Keep in mind that there may be lots of other cases which you have not
and can not think of. Overlays are a wonderfully powerful way to
arbitrarily extend Gentoo. They make Gentoo infinitely more useful.

Anyway, in the case of my overlay, the reason that I have it is very
simple: me becoming a dev needs way too much effort.

It sounds like the sci overlay situation is the same.

I don't really mind this situation in practise, but Gentoo of course
loses. :\


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10 February 2013 20:11, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Otherwise, purpose-driven overlays just make sense - they allow a
>> different set of contributors who are more familiar/interested in a
>> set of packages to maintain them.
>
> It makes more sense to let those people be proxy-maintainers and keep
> those packages in the main tree.

I'm all for that, but until the barriers to that become lower than the
barriers to just creating your own overlay, there will always be
overlays that contain stuff better maintained that the corresponding
stuff in the main tree.

I fully support anything that will make proxy-maintenance easier.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> Having nice mailinglist where users can contribute simple patches
>> would be briliant thing to use :-)
>
> That's still a waste of time compared to gerrit. You should look at
> it if you don't know it already.

I'll take patchwork over gerrit, honestly ;)

-A

>
>
> //Peter
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[Peter Stuge]

Alec Warner wrote:
> >> Having nice mailinglist where users can contribute simple patches
> >> would be briliant thing to use :-)
> >
> > That's still a waste of time compared to gerrit. You should look at
> > it if you don't know it already.
> 
> I'll take patchwork over gerrit, honestly ;)

Did you use gerrit's ssh interface?


//Peter

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Lastrites: media-gfx/picasa, dev-python/papyon, net-voip/telepathy-butterfly, sci-visualization/paraview, x11-misc/xdaf

[James Cloos]

PR> # Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2013)
PR> # Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with
PR> # boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old
PR> # version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659).
PR> # Removal in a month.
PR> sci-visualization/paraview

Or, more responsibly, the version in the sci overlay should move
to the main tree.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6