Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@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 19:50:57
Message-Id: 4E9740F3.1080607@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 Samuli Suominen
1 Samuli Suominen schrieb:
2 >> This is something that I have been asking for all the time. If you think
3 >> that what qutecom did should be illegal in Gentoo, then disallow it in
4 >> policy or code.
5 >
6 > Drop that "should be" act, please. It looks as if you were still
7 > suggesting it was fine to do what qutecom did...
8
9 Before the package was masked for removal, I was fairly convinced that
10 it was fine. Then I noticed that you have different opinions.
11
12 If "<linux-headers-…" dependencies violate policy, then I would like to
13 read the authoritative document which describes that policy. If
14 downgrading linux-headers breaks systems, then I would like to hear
15 about incidents where this actually happened. My Google-fu is apparently
16 too weak to find these.
17
18 If the policy is not clear on the matter then removal against
19 maintainer's consent is not justified. If the breakage is only
20 hypothetical then not even a p.mask is justified IMO (though I
21 understand that QA can mask packages at their discretion without needing
22 any reason).
23
24
25 Best regards,
26 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn