[arch-dev-public] Replacing qtparted with partitionman from aur?
Hi folks: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/14745 I haven't used qtparted in ages and it seems partitionman seems more up to date and developed. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
Hi folks: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/14745 I haven't used qtparted in ages and it seems partitionman seems more up to date and developed.
We might add it, but as partitionman is not a successor of qtparted, a "replaces" directive seems wrong. I don't use qtparted and don't know partitionman, but I have no objections to adding one or dropping the other - if nobody else objects, do as you think.
Am Donnerstag 21 Mai 2009 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
Hi folks: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/14745 I haven't used qtparted in ages and it seems partitionman seems more up to date and developed.
We might add it, but as partitionman is not a successor of qtparted, a "replaces" directive seems wrong. I don't use qtparted and don't know partitionman, but I have no objections to adding one or dropping the other - if nobody else objects, do as you think. I wouldn't add a replace for it just drop qtparted from extra
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
I wouldn't add a replace for it just drop qtparted from extra
Sounds fine from my end. I think the rule here is to wait a day after your posting for any objections - if none come, do it. Did we ever write that rule down in some guidelines?
2009/5/21, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de>:
Hi folks: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/14745 I haven't used qtparted in ages and it seems partitionman seems more up to date and developed.
I have no objections. -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org
participants (3)
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Powalowski