Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@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 03:30:43
Message-Id: 4E965B3F.1080900@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 Matt Turner
On 10/13/2011 03:10 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: >> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >>> Mike Frysinger schrieb: >>>>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. >>>> >>>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree >>>> with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph. >>> >>> The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before. >> >> I'm not sure if you should have gentoo-x86 access anymore... This is scary. > > Come on. That's ridiculous, and nothing but trolling. Don't do that. > > Like in the pngcrush thread, miscommunications all around. > > Matt >
(see my reply to Mike. I admit that came out way too blunt. sorry Chi-Thanh, Matt.)