On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:13:33 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:10:59 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > So you're saying that the X maintainers have more important
| > | > things to do than fixing their ebu
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:10:59 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > So you're saying that the X maintainers have more important things
| > to do than fixing their ebuilds to follow policy?
|
| You keep saying it breaks policy but you've never actually cited a
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:10:59 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > So you're saying that the X maintainers have more important things
| > to do than fixing their ebuilds to follow policy?
|
| You keep saying it breaks policy but you've never actually cited any
| policy it breaks.
Hi list,
app-antivirus/vlnx is currently lacking an active maintainer and has
missing distfiles. [1] If you're interested in taking on this package,
please update its metadata.xml (if appropriate) and assign bug 117650 to
yourself. Otherwise it will removed from the tree in 30 days (December
19t
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100:
> ACCEPT_LICENSE
> --
>
> This GLEP proposes that a user be able to explicitly accept or decline
> licenses by editing a new variable ``ACCEPT_LICENSE`` in
> ``/etc/make.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:49:12 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The other option is to submit patches for X and KDE and Gnome to use
| a unified license. At least in the X case, it's not that the patches
| arn't welcome, it's that the maintainers have things mor
