Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:15:01PM -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
>> The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages
>> lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid
>> alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first gl
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:15:01PM -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
> The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages
> lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid
> alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it
> seems like all o
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 19:57 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
> Luis Medinas wrote:
> > Pwm is a different wm than ion but they are both provided on the same
> > tarball so why remove pwm ? Are you trying to add a USE for ion to
> > provide pwm ?
>
> Hrm... After a quick glance at the ebuilds and dist
Luis Medinas wrote:
> Pwm is a different wm than ion but they are both provided on the same
> tarball so why remove pwm ? Are you trying to add a USE for ion to
> provide pwm ?
Hrm... After a quick glance at the ebuilds and distfiles, it seems like
they aren't using the same tarball. Also, the PWM
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 19:15 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
> The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages
> lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid
> alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it
> seems like all of the f
The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages
lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid
alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it
seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream.
x11-wm/aewm++ -- alt
