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 1RDYiU-0005Su-5K for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:33:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 034E021C19F; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:33:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50EE21C175 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9711B400F for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:33:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -4.703 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.703 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.896, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XhGe6VQZDE2a for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:32:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC45F1B401A for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RDYhc-0004o5-FP for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:32:48 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:32:48 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:32:48 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4E900E3E.2070202@gentoo.org> <4E905C48.20008@gentoo.org> <20111008151336.GN704@gentoo.org> <4E906D3B.2090200@gentoo.org> <20111010210043.4b31d55e@gentoo.org> <4E93EBA1.3020406@gentoo.org> 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=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 8e43cc5 branch-master) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 85da13040f7716371194c04066af37cf Markos Chandras posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100 as excerpted: > On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote: >> Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer. >> I could have sworn that was written down somewhere. >>=20 > Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the > timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the > remaining broken packages will be gone. Are you seriously proposing that libpng 1.5 should follow a six-month- hard-masked before unmasking to ~arch and 18-month-to-stable (total,=20 including the hard-mask time) timeline? =20 Because that's the sort of timeline you're comparing against. What's the= =20 rush, again, especially if it can't be stabilized anyway for another nine= =20 months? 30 days doesn't look so long against that after all, does it? --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman