| 1 |
>> > C. Jer misses keywords because the KDE team did not provide a distinct |
| 2 |
>> > list of packages |
| 3 |
>> Because we didn't even ask for re-keywording. :-) |
| 4 |
> According to Rej you dropped the hppa keyword without informing him. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That is correct. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> The current policy states that you should file a bug in this case. Did you? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It, |
| 11 |
KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re-keyworded. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We will file a bug for 4.0.2 at the earliest. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> If there is no documentation for the dropped keyword then Rej could |
| 16 |
> easily conclude that the dropped keyword was a mistake and fix it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
When you find 208 (!) packages |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
1. that have all keywords but ~amd64 and ~x86 dropped, |
| 21 |
2. which are package.masked with prominent notice, |
| 22 |
3. the maintainers of which are available, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
do you assume that was a mistake and randomly keyword stuff or do you |
| 25 |
ask the maintainers? :-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Also who detected the brokenness and who fixed it? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Nothing was broken before the failed re-keywording attempt. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives