Also dev-util/bazaar should be package masked and removed: ====================== http://bazaar-vcs.org/Baz1x ============================== Baz (baz) is a deprecated implementation of the GNU Arch protocol, designed for usability and performance. baz is still available but we recommend you use Bazaar instead. ================================================================================= CC'ing python, as the current implementaion is maintained by developer from that herd...
pva: Your bug suggests that dev-util/bazaar should not be removed but dbaz. dev-util/bazaar is the suggested replacement for baz.
I'm not 100% sure as I never followed development of this tools, but seems that we have naming collision here. The announce speaks about baz utility which is installed with dev-util/bazaar package, while new utility name is bzr and which is installed with dev-util/bzr package and that package is installed from sources downloaded from sources from the page announce points to: http://bazaar-vcs.org/Download . Also einfo after installation tells us: 'This package installs the "baz" utility. If you are looking for the "bzr" utility, use "emerge bzr".' Thus I think that I'm correct with my request here.
Let's vote then.. +1 (because I've personally been confused by the two packages before)
+1 from me (also got confused by the two packages being around)
+1 same as comment 3 & 4. Or at least rename..to baz?..but why bother?
punt
+1 from me fwiw.. This package is dead.
22:34 <+darksiide> !rdep dev-util/bazaar 22:34 <+jeeves> dev-util/bazaar <- app-emacs/xtla @emacs team: Considering that dev-util/bazaar is an || dep with dev-util/tla, could bazaar be removed from DEPEND on app-emacs/xtla?
> @emacs team: Considering that dev-util/bazaar is an || dep with dev-util/tla, > could bazaar be removed from DEPEND on app-emacs/xtla? Certainly. The question rather is if we should remove app-emacs/xtla? Upstream has announced that they will cease development in favour of app-emacs/dvc (which is in the Emacs overlay). @opfer: Any opinion?
(In reply to comment #9) > > @emacs team: Considering that dev-util/bazaar is an || dep with dev-util/tla, > > could bazaar be removed from DEPEND on app-emacs/xtla? > > Certainly. > > The question rather is if we should remove app-emacs/xtla? Upstream has > announced that they will cease development in favour of app-emacs/dvc (which is > in the Emacs overlay). > @opfer: Any opinion? dvc is not usable, xtla is really experimental and is the base of the first...so yes, I am ok with it.
I've removed the dependency on bazaar from app-emacs/xtla.
Taking initiative on this one, please comment if you think otherwise. Thanks. # Jeremy Olexa <darkside@gentoo.org> (20 Jun 2008) # Masked for removal in ~30 days by the treecleaners # Dead project and predecessor to dev-util/bzr, use that instead. bug #219236 dev-util/bazaar
Removed from tree.
