Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

# Samuli Suominen <dracgentoo.org> (21 Jul
2007)
# Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
# Masked for removal in 30 days.
x11-misc/fsv
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen <dracgentoo.org> (21 Jul
2007)
> # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
> # Masked for removal in 30 days.
> x11-misc/fsv

in other words, you have no real reason for punting this
package ?
-mike

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:27:32 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapiergentoo.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > # Samuli Suominen <dracgentoo.org> (21 Jul
2007)
> > # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
> > # Masked for removal in 30 days.
> > x11-misc/fsv
> in other words, you have no real reason for punting
this package ?
> -mike

well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it to
version 2
from upstream is a valid reason, BUT it doesn't draw the
graphics
correctly and seems broken with current mesa -- draws white
artifacts.
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Sunday 22 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapiergentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > > # Samuli Suominen <dracgentoo.org> (21 Jul 2007)
> > > # Last release from 1999, still using
GTK+-1.2.
> > > # Masked for removal in 30 days.
> > > x11-misc/fsv
> >
> > in other words, you have no real reason for
punting this package ?
>
> well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it
to version 2
> from upstream is a valid reason

punting a package because you disagree with the
implementation is not a valid 
reason.  nor is an upstream who hasnt touched a package in
ages.  there are 
plenty of packages in system which could be punted using
this reasoning 
leaving Gentoo broken.

> BUT it doesn't draw the graphics correctly and seems
broken with current
> mesa -- draws white artifacts. 

if the package doesnt function properly, that is a reason. 
it runs fine for 
me, but i'm not interested in supporting the package.
-mike

On Saturday 28 July 2007, Ryan Hill wrote:
> But the point is upstream not
> maintaining something is not reason enough for removing
it.  Upstream
> not maintaining it and it being broken is.  Upstream
not maintaining it
> and it being an unwanted pain in the ass is also
popular one.

all correct
-mike