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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HkOfT-00081X-GO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 05 May 2007 18:07:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l45I6MqE022101; Sat, 5 May 2007 18:06:22 GMT Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.229]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l45I0pvt014760 for ; Sat, 5 May 2007 18:00:52 GMT Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so1934715wxd for ; Sat, 05 May 2007 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kmy6Kz6Wgnfh56/45NqPkExj1aqoPH7sXJdqczkCLorUVjaCAMAgkssroVSR5ke8n1NQW5zvZo/8nOptu/Izhp7S+0/hyHgyjbs2QNvUNQWxy3mTGBwssNY8tGl7T38PDuhKC0OkjGJ2dix1P0DzE6p+BTUdrs0/gQyYgXXcgt0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uQB8theORZplZ9jJudMeonZTv3Vnwd3cuHjOzTrSZXNTkLlpNX/Tj5jZC+FxVqv0kS4G3evOf2DzuBtVPo9n2trzZgq306tvhpcEyojtjJPfrI5kx3o5JGHNoQl/2FkBUyVg69/lZBHRg2mO7vXEcnNMN5AzvKXqmPFPMgb02do= Received: by 10.70.27.18 with SMTP id a18mr8418561wxa.1178388050874; Sat, 05 May 2007 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.98.16 with HTTP; Sat, 5 May 2007 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9238e8de0705051100m2c48f10dn3b79e1c2cb7d6db0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 20:00:50 +0200 From: "=?UTF-8?Q?Marko_Koci=C4=87?=" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Wesnoth version In-Reply-To: <200705050904.19325.bss03@volumehost.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9238e8de0705050640o3de68d0ub4bd8184d05b9a74@mail.gmail.com> <200705050904.19325.bss03@volumehost.net> X-Archives-Salt: e6df1834-9ec3-4b3b-a4c4-102fc01d11ed X-Archives-Hash: 44dba796436186641eaeb94a219a0bd8 On 5/5/07, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > Yeah, a new numbered release deserves it's own ebuild, even if it has to > linger in package.mask. Make sure it's been 2-3 days after the release > and then file a version bump bug. Please report if "simply renaming" the > existing ebuild works and/or what you had to change to get a clean > compile/install. Simple renaming worked on my "~x86" system. I haven't noticed nothing suspicious so far. > If you follow Wesnoth closely, but aren't part of upstream, you might > consider becoming a/the gentoo package maintainer for it. IIRC, IMHO, the > packaging for Wesnoth could use a little "love". I agree that Wesnoth woul need more "love", but I don't qualify as official maintainer of Wesnoth package simply because I have never looked into the code. But if "let's try to rename ebuild and see what happens when the new version is released", I'll be glad to help by sending reports to this list. Thanks, Marko -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list