| 1 |
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 17:42:47 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger schrieb: |
| 3 |
> > otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it, |
| 6 |
> then it is obviously not common. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
you're mixing "common" with "absolute". so far, you're the only one who seems |
| 9 |
to think that this behavior is generally acceptable. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> >> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or |
| 12 |
> >> announcement. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > well, it shouldn't have been re-added in the first place |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Why not? Nothing in the Gentoo documentation forbids adding an ebuild |
| 17 |
> which downgrades linux-headers or any other package. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
there is plenty of stupid stuff the documentation doesn't forbid. again, refer |
| 20 |
to Rich's post. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
qutecom is hardly an important package that it gets an exception. i'm sure |
| 23 |
all 3 Gentoo users were saddened by its demise. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> And it is not that I dumped the package to rot there. In my email to |
| 26 |
> -devel I said that I was going to address the problem that suddenly |
| 27 |
> became so urgent. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
it doesn't matter if you intended on getting the issues fixed. the issue |
| 30 |
shouldn't have been reintroduced in the first place. nothing in this path |
| 31 |
necessitated adding bad packages back to the tree. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> > your package is already broken, |
| 34 |
> > and removing the linux-headers would break that depgraph. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree |
| 39 |
with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> runs fine with the packages in portage. It may trigger a linux-headers |
| 42 |
> downgrade, but if that really causes breakage in other packages (and I |
| 43 |
> am not convinced, as you gave only vague arguments, and a Google search |
| 44 |
> didn't turn up anything) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
i provided a hypothetical that is not unreasonable. if google could look up |
| 47 |
hypotheticals, then it's probably self-aware. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> then it could be reason for masking. But not reason for removal. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
we don't generally keep masked things in the tree. it's broken, it gets |
| 52 |
masked, then it gets removed. this isn't complicated. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> Only after all <linux-headers-2.6.38 versions are removed, then it is |
| 55 |
> indeed uninstallable and needs to be fixed or treecleaned. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
the existence of other versions is irrelevant. your pkg is broken and needs |
| 58 |
to be fixed now regardless of what happens to old linux-headers versions. |
| 59 |
-mike |
Archives