Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@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 19:50:57
Message-Id: 4E9740F3.1080607@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 Samuli Suominen
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> This is something that I have been asking for all the time. If you think >> that what qutecom did should be illegal in Gentoo, then disallow it in >> policy or code. > > Drop that "should be" act, please. It looks as if you were still > suggesting it was fine to do what qutecom did...
Before the package was masked for removal, I was fairly convinced that it was fine. Then I noticed that you have different opinions. If "<linux-headers-…" dependencies violate policy, then I would like to read the authoritative document which describes that policy. If downgrading linux-headers breaks systems, then I would like to hear about incidents where this actually happened. My Google-fu is apparently too weak to find these. If the policy is not clear on the matter then removal against maintainer's consent is not justified. If the breakage is only hypothetical then not even a p.mask is justified IMO (though I understand that QA can mask packages at their discretion without needing any reason). Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn