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
>> announcement.
> 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
for qutecom.

>  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.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn