| 1 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:51:28 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > you need to fix your filter then. an "open bug" is not an |
| 5 |
> > acceptable reason for masking a package. if you're going to clean |
| 6 |
> > a package, you need to research actual reasons to mask & punt. |
| 7 |
> > -mike |
| 8 |
> Dont be joking, |
| 9 |
> Your approach of adding new packages to main tree is that you add them |
| 10 |
> with empty metadata.xml and we have to remove them in few years |
| 11 |
> because they are steaming piles of bugs... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Er, say whah? Flinging mud? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Mike's got a very valid point, in that you don't mask a package because |
| 16 |
of an open bug. All the rest of what you added below is about |
| 17 |
--as-needed, which doesn't apply to the bug in case and which is still |
| 18 |
no valid reason to mask a package anyway. End of discussion, plz? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yah, |
| 22 |
jer |
Archives