Steve Dibb wrote: > So, I'm curious -- did anyone ever come to a decision what to do on the > matter? The list traffic seems to be dying down. Maybe I just missed > the final decision email. > > Not that it really matters, but here's my 2 cents: > > If its a pita to maintain, hard mask everything and just say "sorry, no > bugs fixie unless you want to maintain it. See > http://dev.g.o/~foo/xmms.html for reasons" At least that way it will > still be in the tree for those that want to use it. > > The second thing is, why does it even matter if its out of the tree or > not? Those who are currently using it will still have it installed on > their system, anyway. I'm still using audacious 0.2.3 even though it's > been taken out, and I won't upgrade until my favorite plugin is ported. > I'm fine with that. > > Anyway, whatever. Do what works best. :) > > Steve
++ I don't see how whining about a package you don't maintain, nor helping out with it helps anyone. Either it stays in pmask, or it stays in sunrise (since I would bet 5 bucks it ends up in sunrise after getting punted). The sound team has been very courteous in informing the community on the matters pertaining to xmms, so either someone picks up the slack for it, or the affected users (developers and arch teams included) find another player. I don't see why sound should break their backs just so everyone can have their cake. It reminds me of the whole "why isn't X,Y,Z stable!". You are an empowered smart user, I think you can figure out how to keep a package that is not in the tree installed on your systems. -Alec Warner -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
