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 |