-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
David R. Morrison wrote:
> As Martin has pointed out, some quiet negotiation with Apple led to the
> restoration (again!) of the August 2003 gcc updater, so 10.2-gcc3.3 is
> working again.
> I guess what I think we should be doing in terms of EOL for 10.2-gcc3.3
> is to decide at some point that we won't update the fink package manager
> any more in that tree. Aside from that, though, I think that leaving the
> tree in place for the use of those that want to use it, makes sense.
> I also think it would make sense to authorize some people to make modifications
> there (of any package they liked) so that the 10.2-gcc3.3 user community
> could take responsibility for their own tree if they cared to do so.
I am a bit confused. I think, all of us, were pretty clear on the fact, that
we cannot support 10.2-gcc3.3
It was a clear perspective to deprecate support for that tree and I feel
strongly about dropping it.
I agree, that we should not delete the work that has gone into it, but I also
advise, that we cannot be the official place to govern it any longer.
Tar it up, put it on the web-site, let someone else take care of it in their CVS.
> What we should do, though, is to think of a mechanism by which it can be
> made clear that the original package maintainers no longer have responsibility
> for the 10.2-gcc3.3 versions of their packages. If anybody has any
> suggestions along those lines, I would love to hear them.
Excuse me for being blunt, but that seems easy. Simply allow me to officially
deprecate the tree and announce that it is dead.
> It also might be nice if there were a way, when opting for "CVS" as the
> update method, to limit one's CVS checkout to a specified list of trees.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----