1 |
Mike Frysinger schrieb: |
2 |
|
3 |
> otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post. |
4 |
|
5 |
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it, |
6 |
then it is obviously not common. |
7 |
|
8 |
>> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or |
9 |
>> announcement. |
10 |
> well, it shouldn't have been re-added in the first place |
11 |
|
12 |
Why not? Nothing in the Gentoo documentation forbids adding an ebuild |
13 |
which downgrades linux-headers or any other package. |
14 |
|
15 |
And it is not that I dumped the package to rot there. In my email to |
16 |
-devel I said that I was going to address the problem that suddenly |
17 |
became so urgent. |
18 |
|
19 |
> i would not consider broken packages (i.e. qutecom) in the tree as basis for |
20 |
> retaining the old versions of linux-headers. |
21 |
|
22 |
At no point I even suggested that old linux-headers versions be retained |
23 |
for qutecom. |
24 |
|
25 |
> your package is already broken, |
26 |
> and removing the linux-headers would break that depgraph. |
27 |
|
28 |
The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. It builds and |
29 |
runs fine with the packages in portage. It may trigger a linux-headers |
30 |
downgrade, but if that really causes breakage in other packages (and I |
31 |
am not convinced, as you gave only vague arguments, and a Google search |
32 |
didn't turn up anything) then it could be reason for masking. But not |
33 |
reason for removal. |
34 |
|
35 |
Only after all <linux-headers-2.6.38 versions are removed, then it is |
36 |
indeed uninstallable and needs to be fixed or treecleaned. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
Best regards, |
40 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |