Re: on removing roxen4

2008-09-02 Thread Luk Claes
Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Hi, > > according to #495663, roxen4 includes binaries without source (and other > not built from source). > Given that neither it nor its (absolute, i.e. fully broken when roxen4 > would be removed) reverse dependencies (libroxen-form libroxen-xmlutils) > have been in the

Re: on removing roxen4

2008-08-28 Thread Thomas Viehmann
Hi, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> according to #495663, roxen4 includes binaries without source (and other >> not built from source). >> Given that neither it nor its (absolute, i.e. fully broken when roxen4 >> would be removed) reverse dependencies (libroxen-form libroxen-xmlutils) >> have been in the

Re: on removing roxen4

2008-08-28 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Hi, > according to #495663, roxen4 includes binaries without source (and other > not built from source). > Given that neither it nor its (absolute, i.e. fully broken when roxen4 > would be removed) reverse dependencies (libroxen-form libroxen-xmlutils) > have been in the last stable release or are

on removing roxen4

2008-08-28 Thread Thomas Viehmann
Hi, according to #495663, roxen4 includes binaries without source (and other not built from source). Given that neither it nor its (absolute, i.e. fully broken when roxen4 would be removed) reverse dependencies (libroxen-form libroxen-xmlutils) have been in the last stable release or are terribly