On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 15:27 -0500, Dutch Ingraham wrote:
>
> I would argue it is not the raw number or percentage of packages that
> are out of date, but *which* packages are out of date. For example,
> I
> wouldn't place equal weight on pychess as I would glibc.
Agree with this completely -
There's a refind-efi package up on the aur as well.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 03:19:29PM -0400, Ido Rosen wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ido Rosen wrote:
>
> Although, it's worth noting, 220/14800 (<2%) of out of date packages at any
> given time (and <0.2% badly out of date) isn't that bad...
I would argue it is not the raw number or pe
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ido Rosen wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Genes Lists via arch-general <
> arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> refind-efi has been flagged out of date for 9 months.
>> Are there any packagers who would be willing to take this one over?
>>
>> It
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Genes Lists via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> refind-efi has been flagged out of date for 9 months.
> Are there any packagers who would be willing to take this one over?
>
> It is not the most out of date even ... but it's an important
> co
5 matches
Mail list logo