| 1 |
Mike Frysinger schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it, |
| 6 |
then it is obviously not common. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
>> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or |
| 9 |
>> announcement. |
| 10 |
> well, it shouldn't have been re-added in the first place |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Why not? Nothing in the Gentoo documentation forbids adding an ebuild |
| 13 |
which downgrades linux-headers or any other package. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
And it is not that I dumped the package to rot there. In my email to |
| 16 |
-devel I said that I was going to address the problem that suddenly |
| 17 |
became so urgent. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> i would not consider broken packages (i.e. qutecom) in the tree as basis for |
| 20 |
> retaining the old versions of linux-headers. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
At no point I even suggested that old linux-headers versions be retained |
| 23 |
for qutecom. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> your package is already broken, |
| 26 |
> and removing the linux-headers would break that depgraph. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. It builds and |
| 29 |
runs fine with the packages in portage. It may trigger a linux-headers |
| 30 |
downgrade, but if that really causes breakage in other packages (and I |
| 31 |
am not convinced, as you gave only vague arguments, and a Google search |
| 32 |
didn't turn up anything) then it could be reason for masking. But not |
| 33 |
reason for removal. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Only after all <linux-headers-2.6.38 versions are removed, then it is |
| 36 |
indeed uninstallable and needs to be fixed or treecleaned. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives