| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
> Joshua Jackson wrote: |
| 6 |
>> I will have to agree that this change has made it a pain to mark |
| 7 |
>> anything |
| 8 |
>> stable. I had 4 out of the 6 I did today bail out because of this. |
| 9 |
>> I took the |
| 10 |
>> simple easy fix and removed the check to stabalize the packages I |
| 11 |
>> needed to. I |
| 12 |
>> know we have people who want modular X yesterday, but causing |
| 13 |
>> trouble for dev's |
| 14 |
>> going about business that doesn't involve the modular problems |
| 15 |
>> directly is only |
| 16 |
>> going to cause resentment and frustration to all the teams involved. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Why is the simple fix not copying over the already fixed |
| 19 |
> dependencies in the latest ebuild? It's not as if that's a lot of |
| 20 |
> work. That's the intent of this failure -- to avoid flyby commits by |
| 21 |
> people when they could just fix the deps (which are already |
| 22 |
> available in ~arch) while they're there. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Thanks, |
| 25 |
> Donnie |
| 26 |
In the oldest version of the package (as all these were), I don't see |
| 27 |
much point in the change. They will be removed within a fairly short |
| 28 |
amount of time. Secondary, you are suggesting that any dev who comes |
| 29 |
across a modular x problem to fix it..even if this is a direct |
| 30 |
violation of the guidelines set forth in the documentation? I'm |
| 31 |
curious as to why you want potentially 200+ dev's to violate it, to |
| 32 |
push modular so quickly? |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iD8DBQFD3wfrSENan+PfizARApkUAJ4/Rfr/iMwZMD1lCkhwBnGH+BhUVwCdHqsD |
| 37 |
Rc97k6+FBAKp59MAa2t16Ig= |
| 38 |
=P92T |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives