Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
>> downgrades are unacceptable.
>>
>>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form.
>>
>> It sets correct dependency on an existing ebuild in tree. The dependency
>> is only build time, users can upgrade linux-headers again afterwards.
>> The application itself is v4l2 compatible.
> 
> common sense...
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c5

linux-headers is not a library, it is strictly a build time dependency
for all packages which I am aware of.

> linux-headers -> glibc.  no package should force downgrade on
> linux-headers, risking glibc building against older version than
> KEYWORDS visibility would allow.

No idea where the risk in that is documented. If there is a danger in
building new glibc against old linux-headers, it would surely deserve a
notice somewhere?

>> What I am a bit unhappy about is that the package was masked and removed
>> while I was away. Even bypassing the usual 30 days and no last rite
>> announcement was sent to -dev.
> 
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_5e6d8403c90549d8caf4f27f0d14f01f.xml
> 

Ok sorry, I missed that mail for some reason. But 30 days were still
bypassed.

> The time ran out with opening of http://bugs.gentoo.org/384733 for
> linux-headers reverse deps to be tracked stable.
> 
> I've removed qutecom for you again.

Please put it back in tree. You have my consent to remove it on 13
October (when the 30 days are over) and I have not fixed it yet.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn