Hi together,
since i am not able to get any real argument or even discussion on IRC nor on
this mailing list from
Arfrever (main person behind those changes), i would like to raise the
following points now on this
mailing list as told on IRC, so he gets the chance to answer those points and
to
Le jeudi 27 mai 2010 à 16:33 +0200, Thomas Sachau a écrit :
Hi together,
since i am not able to get any real argument or even discussion on IRC nor on
this mailing list from
Arfrever (main person behind those changes), i would like to raise the
following points now on this
mailing list
There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the
problem by renaming it.
Cheers,
Ben
-- Forwarded message --
From: bugzilla-dae...@gentoo.org
Date: 27 May 2010 10:44
Subject: [Bug 319061] media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 update not handled by
preserved-libs due to
On 05/27/2010 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the
problem by renaming it.
No, the bug is about Portage 2.2 and @preserved-libs feature.
It was restricted by Arfrever before, then you unrestricted it and the
(unrelated) bugspam
On 27 May 2010 22:52, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/27/2010 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the
problem by renaming it.
No, the bug is about Portage 2.2 and @preserved-libs feature.
It was restricted by
On 05/28/2010 12:09 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 27 May 2010 22:52, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/27/2010 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the
problem by renaming it.
No, the bug is about Portage 2.2 and
