1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:02:41 +0200 |
2 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is, |
4 |
> > and if you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then |
5 |
> > not implementing it at all until you have suitable features. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Sorry to make this old thread pop up again but, no, it is not |
8 |
> acceptable to not ship packages like webkit just because you dislike |
9 |
> the solution we used to workaround a well known problem in ebuild |
10 |
> packaging. |
11 |
|
12 |
No-one is saying "don't ship webkit". What is being asked is that a) you |
13 |
ship webkit with a subset of functionality disabled if necessary for |
14 |
now, and b) that you provide a general description of what you can't |
15 |
provide cleanly using existing functionality. |
16 |
|
17 |
If you really think it's necessary to come up with a workaround like |
18 |
this, though, then you should be mailing the list and asking for QA or |
19 |
Council approval, rather than doing it and then asking for forgiveness |
20 |
later. |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |