On 10/02/2011 02:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> On 10/01/2011 08:02 PM, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen (chithanh) wrote:
>>> chithanh    11/10/01 17:02:59
>>>
>>>   Added:                metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
>>>   Log:
>>>   Bring back qutecom.
>>
>> Bringing back version of qutecom, that is forcing downgrade on
>> linux-headers, when >= 2.6.38 is being stabilized is completely
>> unacceptable.
> 
> 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 -> glibc.  no package should force downgrade on
linux-headers, risking glibc building against older version than
KEYWORDS visibility would allow.

> 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

> Bug 361181 is certainly on my TODO list, just not very high up to now.
> If you think that there is some urgency in getting rid of the package,
> please do explain so in advance.

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.

- Samuli