"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
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn