1 |
Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
2 |
>> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that |
3 |
>> downgrades are unacceptable. |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> It sets correct dependency on an existing ebuild in tree. The dependency |
8 |
>> is only build time, users can upgrade linux-headers again afterwards. |
9 |
>> The application itself is v4l2 compatible. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> common sense... |
12 |
> |
13 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2 |
14 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c5 |
15 |
|
16 |
linux-headers is not a library, it is strictly a build time dependency |
17 |
for all packages which I am aware of. |
18 |
|
19 |
> linux-headers -> glibc. no package should force downgrade on |
20 |
> linux-headers, risking glibc building against older version than |
21 |
> KEYWORDS visibility would allow. |
22 |
|
23 |
No idea where the risk in that is documented. If there is a danger in |
24 |
building new glibc against old linux-headers, it would surely deserve a |
25 |
notice somewhere? |
26 |
|
27 |
>> What I am a bit unhappy about is that the package was masked and removed |
28 |
>> while I was away. Even bypassing the usual 30 days and no last rite |
29 |
>> announcement was sent to -dev. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_5e6d8403c90549d8caf4f27f0d14f01f.xml |
32 |
> |
33 |
|
34 |
Ok sorry, I missed that mail for some reason. But 30 days were still |
35 |
bypassed. |
36 |
|
37 |
> The time ran out with opening of http://bugs.gentoo.org/384733 for |
38 |
> linux-headers reverse deps to be tracked stable. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> I've removed qutecom for you again. |
41 |
|
42 |
Please put it back in tree. You have my consent to remove it on 13 |
43 |
October (when the 30 days are over) and I have not fixed it yet. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
Best regards, |
47 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |