| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:24 AM, <grozin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their library, I |
| 3 |
> could safely bump it from 2.1 to 4.0, in spite of the fact that it is |
| 4 |
> maintainer-needed, right? |
| 5 |
> Am I personally responsible for their decision to use the new name |
| 6 |
> libunibreak? |
| 7 |
> If there are QA problems in libunibreak-4.0.ebuild, they are surely shared |
| 8 |
> by liblinebreak-2.1.ebuild (which is stable on amd64, ppc and x86, and |
| 9 |
> ~arm). Why these problems were not cought for many years |
| 10 |
> liblinebreak-2.1.ebuild is in the tree? (it is there from before the git |
| 11 |
> migration, git log only shows trivial commits not changing its |
| 12 |
> functionality) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If you are maintaining software that uses the new library, just make |
| 15 |
yourself the maintainer. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not sure what these "QA" issues might be; if repoman likes it, and the |
| 18 |
ebuild works, please go ahead and re-add it. |
Archives