Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>>> Poor example to make a case.
>>
>> VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on
>> any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no
>> matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to.
> 
> And your point is?

My point is that packages can cause downgrades through "<" dependencies.
There is no rule against it.

Maybe going through upgrade/downgrade cycles is inconvenient for some
users, or downgrades affect a package that you are particularly
interested in. That still doesn't make it justified to remove a package
against the maintainer's wishes. And certainly not to remove it twice
cutting short the required treecleaning process, the second time _after_
I have stated to be willing to fix the bug and challenging you to point
out the authoritative documentation my ebuild was in violation of.

>> And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals.
> 
> The fact that the *common sense* snippet was inserted in this document,
> but isn't documented else where... doesn't make it any less true.

It may be obvious to you, but it certainly is not obvious to me why
linux-headers downgrade is so bad. If vapier's unsupported out-of-tree
software fails to build against old linux-headers, then he has to make
sure to have the correct version installed before proceeding. Blaming
that on qutecom is far-fetched IMO.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn