Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@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: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:53:22
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=ny6zAAu93pmo+dS5WvdQ6opFDBhO6eqndGkdPXY6TRQ@mail.gmail.com
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 Samuli Suominen
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
> Merely saying if we had some documentation snippet, or an end-quiz > question for this, QA could more easily/faster revoke access if someone > were to do this intentionally in tree. This could be minor motivation > for me to write such snippet, but it's definately not near top on my TODO.
I think that something that is worth an official policy is whether in fact "<" or "=" dependencies are acceptable, or in general when they are acceptable. That isn't to say that we have to enumerate all possibilities, but there should be guidelines. I don't think there really is a clear consensus on this. It is definitely a can of worms and I don't think black-and-white is the right approach to take. While slotting libraries is often an option, that gets a lot messier when you're talking about things like header files. Rich

Replies