On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:21 PM, <tuftedoce...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Actually, I do have another concern. The package mcabber-libotr4[1] is > now superfluous. Under nixtrian, the mcabber-hg package did not enable > libotr4 even though upstream has it in the code. My update to the > PKGBUILD now adds libotr4 support by default (this follows the lead from > mcabber in community). Should the mcabber-libotr4 package be removed? I > hate to step on nkoehring's[2] toes, but it is the only package that > user maintains[3]. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mcabber-libotr4/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/nkoehring > [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=nkoehring&SeB=m > > Lucas > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014, at 09:06 AM, tuftedoce...@fastmail.fm wrote: > > Thanks for orphaning all of the packages. I'll go through them and > > figure out which ones are stale and can be deleted and which ones can be > > kept. I'll submit changes necessary in a single request rather than > > spamming the list with removal requests. > > > > Lucas >
I'd leave mcabber-libotr4 for now as it is based on the stable release. It will be removed when mcabber in [community] switches to libotr4 though. -- Maxime