| 1 |
On Sunday, October 02, 2011 08:58:19 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
| 3 |
> >> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that |
| 4 |
> >> downgrades are unacceptable. |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> It sets correct dependency on an existing ebuild in tree. The dependency |
| 9 |
> >> is only build time, users can upgrade linux-headers again afterwards. |
| 10 |
> >> The application itself is v4l2 compatible. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > common sense... |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2 |
| 15 |
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c5 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> linux-headers is not a library, it is strictly a build time dependency |
| 18 |
> for all packages which I am aware of. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
forcing downgrades of random packages is extremely poor behavior. it doesn't |
| 21 |
matter if it's DEPEND or RDEPEND behavior. if your one package is the last |
| 22 |
thing to get installed, then you leave the system in a poor state. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
further, when the newer version gets stabilized and then the older ones |
| 25 |
dropped, what then ? your package is broken. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > The time ran out with opening of http://bugs.gentoo.org/384733 for |
| 28 |
> > linux-headers reverse deps to be tracked stable. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > I've removed qutecom for you again. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Please put it back in tree. You have my consent to remove it on 13 |
| 33 |
> October (when the 30 days are over) and I have not fixed it yet. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
skipping 30 days is a bit premature, but re-adding it at this point doesn't |
| 36 |
make sense. fix it and re-add it, or don't re-add it at all. |
| 37 |
-mike |
Archives