Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@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: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:27:53
Message-Id: 4E965A76.1040109@gentoo.org
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 Mike Frysinger
1 On 10/13/2011 03:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
2 > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 19:58:31 Samuli Suominen wrote:
3 >> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
4 >>> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
5 >>>>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time.
6 >>>>
7 >>>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the
8 >>>> tree with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the
9 >>>> depgraph.
10 >>>
11 >>> The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before.
12 >>
13 >> I'm not sure if you should have gentoo-x86 access anymore... This is scary.
14 >
15 > this isn't helping the conversation
16 > -mike
17
18 you're right. sorry. that came out too harsh. lets rephrase this as:
19
20 "This /topic should be in the end-quiz, and mentioned in the mentoring
21 guide to cover basis as part of the KEYWORDS visibility handling."
22
23 - Samuli

Replies