| 1 |
2014-07-08 14:42 GMT+02:00 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > In fact, they did remove ebuilds from the tree in the past for this |
| 6 |
> > reason [1]. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Given that this was a live ebuild that failed to compile [2] and was |
| 9 |
> dumped onto the games team few weeks after it was committed to the |
| 10 |
> tree [3], I can even understand their reaction, in this particular |
| 11 |
> case. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
[2] Clear upstream bug, we remove live versions when from time to time |
| 15 |
upstream break their repo? If you take look on 1.0 it IS almost the same |
| 16 |
ebuild? |
| 17 |
[3] I remved myself from maitnainership as I found out I don't have enought |
| 18 |
time to work on stuff in Gentoo to keep myself only in office and to make |
| 19 |
them working... So if they didn't want the live version it is perfectly |
| 20 |
sane reasoning for pruning that before, but removing the 1.0 commited few |
| 21 |
weeks ago it is just utter stupid approach and reason why I avoid to have |
| 22 |
to touch anything with games team in Gentoo. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Tom |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Ulrich |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=431552 |
| 31 |
> [3] |
| 32 |
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/games-strategy/openxcom/metadata.xml?hideattic=0&r1=1.1&r2=1.2 |
| 33 |
> |
Archives