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: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:27:53
Message-Id: 4E965A76.1040109@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 Mike Frysinger
On 10/13/2011 03:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:58:31 Samuli Suominen wrote: >> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >>> Mike Frysinger schrieb: >>>>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. >>>> >>>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the >>>> tree with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the >>>> depgraph. >>> >>> The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before. >> >> I'm not sure if you should have gentoo-x86 access anymore... This is scary. > > this isn't helping the conversation > -mike
you're right. sorry. that came out too harsh. lets rephrase this as: "This /topic should be in the end-quiz, and mentioned in the mentoring guide to cover basis as part of the KEYWORDS visibility handling." - Samuli

Replies