| 1 |
On 02/10/2011 11:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 10 February 2011 21:49:53 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: |
| 4 |
>>> Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for |
| 5 |
>>> packages |
| 6 |
>>> several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> That is *exactly* what these masks are. And you should know there is |
| 9 |
>> *no* "five minutes fix". |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Hey come on. If you really wanted to find a maintainer, you'd have given me |
| 12 |
> the time to check back with upstream instead of just refusing a revert. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Packages oscillating in and out of package mask (however broken) is also not |
| 15 |
> nice for the user. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm not sure if you understand opensync then, there's 3-4 series in tree |
| 19 |
and mostly not compatible with each other: |
| 20 |
0.22, 0.36, 0.39 and latest being live 9999. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What you suggested about reverting would have exposed all of them to |
| 23 |
users again. Fixing latest is *not* enough. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Instead you should unmask what you *have fixed* per series (version). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
- Samuli |
Archives