Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@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: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:20:36
Message-Id: 4E881EC1.5030008@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 "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn"
1 On 10/02/2011 02:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
2 > Samuli Suominen schrieb:
3 >> On 10/01/2011 08:02 PM, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen (chithanh) wrote:
4 >>> chithanh 11/10/01 17:02:59
5 >>>
6 >>> Added: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
7 >>> Log:
8 >>> Bring back qutecom.
9 >>
10 >> Bringing back version of qutecom, that is forcing downgrade on
11 >> linux-headers, when >= 2.6.38 is being stabilized is completely
12 >> unacceptable.
13 >
14 > Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
15 > downgrades are unacceptable.
16 >
17 >> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form.
18 >
19 > It sets correct dependency on an existing ebuild in tree. The dependency
20 > is only build time, users can upgrade linux-headers again afterwards.
21 > The application itself is v4l2 compatible.
22
23 common sense...
24
25 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2
26 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c5
27
28 linux-headers -> glibc. no package should force downgrade on
29 linux-headers, risking glibc building against older version than
30 KEYWORDS visibility would allow.
31
32 > What I am a bit unhappy about is that the package was masked and removed
33 > while I was away. Even bypassing the usual 30 days and no last rite
34 > announcement was sent to -dev.
35
36 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_5e6d8403c90549d8caf4f27f0d14f01f.xml
37
38 > Bug 361181 is certainly on my TODO list, just not very high up to now.
39 > If you think that there is some urgency in getting rid of the package,
40 > please do explain so in advance.
41
42 The time ran out with opening of http://bugs.gentoo.org/384733 for
43 linux-headers reverse deps to be tracked stable.
44
45 I've removed qutecom for you again.
46
47 - Samuli

Replies