Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:43:49
Message-Id: 4E9609D7.5070004@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild by Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger schrieb:

> otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post.
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it, then it is obviously not common.
>> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or >> announcement. > well, it shouldn't have been re-added in the first place
Why not? Nothing in the Gentoo documentation forbids adding an ebuild which downgrades linux-headers or any other package. And it is not that I dumped the package to rot there. In my email to -devel I said that I was going to address the problem that suddenly became so urgent.
> i would not consider broken packages (i.e. qutecom) in the tree as basis for > retaining the old versions of linux-headers.
At no point I even suggested that old linux-headers versions be retained for qutecom.
> your package is already broken, > and removing the linux-headers would break that depgraph.
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. It builds and runs fine with the packages in portage. It may trigger a linux-headers downgrade, but if that really causes breakage in other packages (and I am not convinced, as you gave only vague arguments, and a Google search didn't turn up anything) then it could be reason for masking. But not reason for removal. Only after all <linux-headers-2.6.38 versions are removed, then it is indeed uninstallable and needs to be fixed or treecleaned. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Replies