List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:42:47 +0200
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post.
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it,
then it is obviously not common.
>> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or
> well, it shouldn't have been re-added in the first place
Why not? Nothing in the Gentoo documentation forbids adding an ebuild
which downgrades linux-headers or any other package.
And it is not that I dumped the package to rot there. In my email to
-devel I said that I was going to address the problem that suddenly
became so urgent.
> i would not consider broken packages (i.e. qutecom) in the tree as basis for
> retaining the old versions of linux-headers.
At no point I even suggested that old linux-headers versions be retained
> your package is already broken,
> and removing the linux-headers would break that depgraph.
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. It builds and
runs fine with the packages in portage. It may trigger a linux-headers
downgrade, but if that really causes breakage in other packages (and I
am not convinced, as you gave only vague arguments, and a Google search
didn't turn up anything) then it could be reason for masking. But not
reason for removal.
Only after all <linux-headers-2.6.38 versions are removed, then it is
indeed uninstallable and needs to be fixed or treecleaned.
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn