1 |
El lun, 14-06-2010 a las 04:59 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió: |
2 |
> What is the problem? The files in place ask you to file a bug report |
3 |
> instead of fiddling with the files yourselves. I put that in place |
4 |
> because I got (fucking) tired of seeing the after effects of people |
5 |
> fiddling with the arch profile files without 1) consideration, 2) |
6 |
> informing the involved arch team. What do you expect? File a bloody bug |
7 |
> report detailing the (commit) problem you are facing and you will |
8 |
> probably see 1) response and 2) cooperation. If you fuck around with |
9 |
> the arch profile files without doing any of that, you will face 1) a |
10 |
> lack of willingness to cooperate and 2) evil wrath. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Regards, |
14 |
> jer |
15 |
|
16 |
The problem is that, at least regarding gnome related bugs, there are a |
17 |
lot of keywords dropped for your arch that could be prevented |
18 |
use.masking an USE, like, for example, dev-util/anjuta-2.28*, that is |
19 |
causing us to preserve and old (and broken) 2.24 release only for hppa. |
20 |
|
21 |
My intention is only to try to help you and improve the situation, I |
22 |
also have opened bug reports for every change have committed to, for |
23 |
example, powerpc profiles (you will see that I edited your profile |
24 |
yesterday, but it was because I totally missed the note preventing us to |
25 |
do that, this is why I didn't committed any more changes and sent reply |
26 |
above; it wasn't premeditated) |
27 |
|
28 |
Would you allow me to edit hppa package.use.mask *if I open |
29 |
corresponding bug report* ? |
30 |
|
31 |
Thanks :-) |