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: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:32:17
Message-Id: 4E88E644.8070506@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:
>>> Poor example to make a case. >> >> VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on >> any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no >> matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to. > > And your point is?
My point is that packages can cause downgrades through "<" dependencies. There is no rule against it. Maybe going through upgrade/downgrade cycles is inconvenient for some users, or downgrades affect a package that you are particularly interested in. That still doesn't make it justified to remove a package against the maintainer's wishes. And certainly not to remove it twice cutting short the required treecleaning process, the second time _after_ I have stated to be willing to fix the bug and challenging you to point out the authoritative documentation my ebuild was in violation of.
>> And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals. > > The fact that the *common sense* snippet was inserted in this document, > but isn't documented else where... doesn't make it any less true.
It may be obvious to you, but it certainly is not obvious to me why linux-headers downgrade is so bad. If vapier's unsupported out-of-tree software fails to build against old linux-headers, then he has to make sure to have the correct version installed before proceeding. Blaming that on qutecom is far-fetched IMO. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Replies