1 |
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb: |
2 |
> I find the back-and-forth or the "edit war" most disturbing. Okay, so |
3 |
> the package got removed and re-introduced, and removed and re-introduced... |
4 |
|
5 |
There is no edit war, I restored the package once because I assumed it |
6 |
was mistakenly removed too early. |
7 |
When it was removed again then it became clear that it was willful |
8 |
action and so I refrained from further commits. Also QA told me to not |
9 |
add it back again. |
10 |
|
11 |
> In fact, it seems it would be best to let you guys talk on irc and agree |
12 |
> on some solution. |
13 |
|
14 |
I wrote to ssuominen on #gentoo-dev IRC, first time on 2011-10-01 |
15 |
11:42:49 UTC after the first removal, last time on 2011-10-02 13:01:41 |
16 |
UTC after second removal. |
17 |
A discussion between him and other developers ensued, but I never got a |
18 |
direct reply from him. |
19 |
|
20 |
His only reaction that was likely directed at me was "grr, who is |
21 |
chitchan.." at 2011-10-01 18:14:10 UTC, after I restored qutecom. |
22 |
|
23 |
> Finally, forcing downgrades _is_ broken (are you using stable?). If |
24 |
> that's not clear, I'm totally for putting it in the devmanual/quiz or |
25 |
> some other place like that. |
26 |
|
27 |
I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several |
28 |
times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply. |
29 |
|
30 |
The arguments I have heard about why downgrading linux-headers is bad is |
31 |
that it may cause unspecified problems with glibc build (why doesn't |
32 |
glibc depend on proper linux-headers version then?). And something about |
33 |
out of tree compiles. |
34 |
|
35 |
ssuominen himself mentioned |
36 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2 but that talks about |
37 |
libraries not headers. And a bug comment can hardly be called |
38 |
authoritative documentation. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
Best regards, |
42 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |