1 |
Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
2 |
>> This is something that I have been asking for all the time. If you think |
3 |
>> that what qutecom did should be illegal in Gentoo, then disallow it in |
4 |
>> policy or code. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Drop that "should be" act, please. It looks as if you were still |
7 |
> suggesting it was fine to do what qutecom did... |
8 |
|
9 |
Before the package was masked for removal, I was fairly convinced that |
10 |
it was fine. Then I noticed that you have different opinions. |
11 |
|
12 |
If "<linux-headers-…" dependencies violate policy, then I would like to |
13 |
read the authoritative document which describes that policy. If |
14 |
downgrading linux-headers breaks systems, then I would like to hear |
15 |
about incidents where this actually happened. My Google-fu is apparently |
16 |
too weak to find these. |
17 |
|
18 |
If the policy is not clear on the matter then removal against |
19 |
maintainer's consent is not justified. If the breakage is only |
20 |
hypothetical then not even a p.mask is justified IMO (though I |
21 |
understand that QA can mask packages at their discretion without needing |
22 |
any reason). |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
Best regards, |
26 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |