Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Paweł Hajdan
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 03:49:49
Message-Id: 4E8930A7.9020301@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 Arun Raghavan
On 10/2/11 8:26 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> Removing the package again seems to just be unnecessary when the > maintainer has stated that he'll fix the problem. Would masking it > till it was fixed not suffice? Seems like a bit unjustified to me > (from information on this thread alone).
I find the back-and-forth or the "edit war" most disturbing. Okay, so the package got removed and re-introduced, and removed and re-introduced... Please stop canceling each other's actions if possible, just listen and agree to a solution first. Putting a broken package back into tree is not solving anything IMO. Just note I understand possible frustrations if (I haven't verified things) the removal process was not followed correctly. But whatever the circumstances, I don't think keeping re-adding the package is the right solution. In fact, it seems it would be best to let you guys talk on irc and agree on some solution. Finally, forcing downgrades _is_ broken (are you using stable?). If that's not clear, I'm totally for putting it in the devmanual/quiz or some other place like that.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies