| 1 |
On July 29, 2020 10:18:10 AM EDT, Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>On 2020-07-29 16:07, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Package is ~arch exclusively so everyone using it was already |
| 4 |
>upgraded. |
| 5 |
>> Masking <3.0.0_rc1 is perfectly fine if you want to keep old while |
| 6 |
>not |
| 7 |
>> blocking py2-masks of dependencies. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>While I even disagree with that, this is not even what happened. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>And yes, I probably wouldn't have notice this and wouldn't care if only |
| 12 |
><3 were masked. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>But again, that's not what has happened. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So, there we have it. You "wouldn't care" if it didn't touch *your* package. Then, you couldn't simply fix it as another has suggested. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Typical. You will fight it vice saying, "yea, that was an option I could have taken". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
How do you disagree with users keywording that package *not* running the latest version? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Further, if they are on a stable system running it as keyworded... They know how to unmask <3 if they want to use the Py2 only version. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Silliness... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives