On 10/13/2011 03:10 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>>> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>>>>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
>>>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree
>>>> with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph.
>>> The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before.
>> I'm not sure if you should have gentoo-x86 access anymore... This is scary.
> Come on. That's ridiculous, and nothing but trolling. Don't do that.
> Like in the pngcrush thread, miscommunications all around.
(see my reply to Mike. I admit that came out way too blunt. sorry