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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:42:36
Message-Id: CAGfcS_mZa_n6kZJt-Y2rLzp98VvTgSouVp5YOvT7WSLuEj32WA@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 "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn"
2011/10/3 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o>:
> I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several > times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply. >
While I'm all for documenting QA policies, ultimately common sense does need to prevail. As I've commented before we can't always let a lack of defined rules keep us from doing the smart thing - or we'll just turn into a distro ruled by lawyers. There has to be a balance. At this point I think this is another tempest in a teapot - the package shouldn't have been removed yet, and we should try to avoid removing packages pre-maturely in the future. That said, having been removed it doesn't make sense to re-add it until it is fixed, and the maintainer has agreed to this (grudgingly, and I can understand that). As much as it is common sense to not put back a now-broken package, it also wasn't common sense to pull it out with only two week's notice in the first place, and as far as I can tell without any effort to contact the maintainer (not that I'd be aware if an attempt was made). It seems likely to me that on a distro the size of Gentoo things like this can happen without any real malicious intent, and we just need to learn from our mistakes... Rich