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: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:40:18 +0200
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> the system is functioning wrongly because you're forcing users to needlessly 
> upgrade/downgrade packages.  in addition, packages in the tree aren't the only 
> things to be considered.  if the user is building code that works fine against 
> the latest stable, but your package forced it to downgrade, they might no 
> longer build correctly.

Then the code is broken that is built outside portage and does not
function correctly with old linux-headers without doing any kind of
version check.

And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which
would justify mask and removal.

Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch
systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because
of this.

>> Not by surprise treecleaning of packages.
> 
> as you were already shown, this wasn't really a surprise.  it went through the 
> normal announce process, albeit not the normal 30 day grace period.

The whole process was a surprise to me because the masking and
treecleaning happened while I was on 20 days of devaway. I leave the
away message for a day more in case anyone wants to verify.

And it was a surprise treecleaning because the mask and policy said 30
days, but the removal happened before the 30 days were over.

The second time the package was removed was even without mask or
announcement.

>>> further, when the newer version gets stabilized and then the older ones
>>> dropped, what then ?  your package is broken.
>>
>> Yes, when the older one is dropped _that_ would be reason for
>> masking+removal. However I have not seen any plans of doing so. Actually
>> the current amd64 stable 2.6 versions are 35, 26 and 10 months old
>> respectively, I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon.
> 
> sorry, but that's irrelevant.  the lack of tree-cleaning is more due to 
> missing automatic generation of ChangeLog files.  but if this is going to be a 
> sticking point for you, i can simply clean the tree as soon as we get newer 
> stable versions.

If the old versions and reverse dependencies are dropped in accordance
with
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=5#doc_chap7
then I won't complain.


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
-- Mike Frysinger
References:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Mike Frysinger
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
-- Mike Frysinger
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.