On Sunday 11 December 2005 18:02, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Okay now that virtual/x11 introduced the new generation's virtuals, the
> decision of waiting to have virtuals for iconv and libintl can be
> considered concluded, and we might start adding them, right? :D
I'm still waiting for o
On Monday 12 December 2005 00:47, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> Yeah, I certainly -HOPE- that it will retain its blocker vs. glibc, or
> things may slip downhill on a certain rollercoasterride of party and
> fun. Not to mention that they claim the same files ;)
AS long as nobody does stupid things
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 20:40 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 19:29, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > How will you deal with the packages that build against glibc iconv but
> > not against the separated?
> I'll patch them, if they are common packages, ports from Fre
On Sunday 11 December 2005 19:29, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> How will you deal with the packages that build against glibc iconv but
> not against the separated?
I'll patch them, if they are common packages, ports from FreeBSD, NetBSD,
OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD or DarwinPorts will have patches for t
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 18:02 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Okay now that virtual/x11 introduced the new generation's virtuals, the
> decision of waiting to have virtuals for iconv and libintl can be considered
> concluded, and we might start adding them, right? :D
>
> Proposed virtual
