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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:13:10 +0200
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> I find the back-and-forth or the "edit war" most disturbing. Okay, so
> the package got removed and re-introduced, and removed and re-introduced...

There is no edit war, I restored the package once because I assumed it
was mistakenly removed too early.
When it was removed again then it became clear that it was willful
action and so I refrained from further commits. Also QA told me to not
add it back again.

> In fact, it seems it would be best to let you guys talk on irc and agree
> on some solution.

I wrote to ssuominen on #gentoo-dev IRC, first time on 2011-10-01
11:42:49 UTC after the first removal, last time on 2011-10-02 13:01:41
UTC after second removal.
A discussion between him and other developers ensued, but I never got a
direct reply from him.

His only reaction that was likely directed at me was "grr, who is
chitchan.." at 2011-10-01 18:14:10 UTC, after I restored qutecom.

> Finally, forcing downgrades _is_ broken (are you using stable?). If
> that's not clear, I'm totally for putting it in the devmanual/quiz or
> some other place like that.

I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several
times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply.

The arguments I have heard about why downgrading linux-headers is bad is
that it may cause unspecified problems with glibc build (why doesn't
glibc depend on proper linux-headers version then?). And something about
out of tree compiles.

ssuominen himself mentioned
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2 but that talks about
libraries not headers. And a bug comment can hardly be called
authoritative documentation.


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
-- Rich Freeman
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
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Arun Raghavan
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
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:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Next by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild


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.