Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 12:59:14
Message-Id: 4E885FEB.2040301@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild by Samuli Suominen
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

Replies