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
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> 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.
Come on. That's ridiculous, and nothing but trolling. Don't do that. Like in the pngcrush thread, miscommunications all around. Matt

Replies