Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 14:58:19 +0200
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


Replies:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Mike Frysinger
References:
Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Samuli Suominen
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Samuli Suominen
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Next by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Previous by date:
Heads up with linux-headers >= 2.6.38 stabilization (#384733)
Next by date:
Re: FEATURES="stricter" as a default in developer profile not the best idea


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.