On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as > a technicality. I suggest simply removing ion support from the main > tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning > telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those > packages.
Could we not simply rename it, as has been suggested many times thus far? Then we could mask ion3 and let people know why and what it was renamed to, et al. -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) / FSF & EFF Member Gentoo Forums Global Moderator GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
