Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@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 00:11:59
Message-Id: CAEdQ38FDRG7mEnuiF8bsb2iyW_rHpP4x6d5xCxAdyTTrcshWDA@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 Samuli Suominen
1 On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
2 > On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
3 >> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
4 >>>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
5 >>>
6 >>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning.  having qutecom in the tree
7 >>> with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph.
8 >>
9 >> The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before.
10 >
11 > I'm not sure if you should have gentoo-x86 access anymore... This is scary.
12
13 Come on. That's ridiculous, and nothing but trolling. Don't do that.
14
15 Like in the pngcrush thread, miscommunications all around.
16
17 Matt

Replies