Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:42:36
Message-Id: CAGfcS_mZa_n6kZJt-Y2rLzp98VvTgSouVp5YOvT7WSLuEj32WA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild by "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn"
1 2011/10/3 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o>:
2 > I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several
3 > times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply.
4 >
5
6 While I'm all for documenting QA policies, ultimately common sense
7 does need to prevail. As I've commented before we can't always let a
8 lack of defined rules keep us from doing the smart thing - or we'll
9 just turn into a distro ruled by lawyers. There has to be a balance.
10
11 At this point I think this is another tempest in a teapot - the
12 package shouldn't have been removed yet, and we should try to avoid
13 removing packages pre-maturely in the future. That said, having been
14 removed it doesn't make sense to re-add it until it is fixed, and the
15 maintainer has agreed to this (grudgingly, and I can understand that).
16 As much as it is common sense to not put back a now-broken package,
17 it also wasn't common sense to pull it out with only two week's notice
18 in the first place, and as far as I can tell without any effort to
19 contact the maintainer (not that I'd be aware if an attempt was made).
20 It seems likely to me that on a distro the size of Gentoo things like
21 this can happen without any real malicious intent, and we just need to
22 learn from our mistakes...
23
24 Rich