1 |
On 10/2/11 8:26 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote: |
2 |
> Removing the package again seems to just be unnecessary when the |
3 |
> maintainer has stated that he'll fix the problem. Would masking it |
4 |
> till it was fixed not suffice? Seems like a bit unjustified to me |
5 |
> (from information on this thread alone). |
6 |
|
7 |
I find the back-and-forth or the "edit war" most disturbing. Okay, so |
8 |
the package got removed and re-introduced, and removed and re-introduced... |
9 |
|
10 |
Please stop canceling each other's actions if possible, just listen and |
11 |
agree to a solution first. Putting a broken package back into tree is |
12 |
not solving anything IMO. |
13 |
|
14 |
Just note I understand possible frustrations if (I haven't verified |
15 |
things) the removal process was not followed correctly. But whatever the |
16 |
circumstances, I don't think keeping re-adding the package is the right |
17 |
solution. |
18 |
|
19 |
In fact, it seems it would be best to let you guys talk on irc and agree |
20 |
on some solution. |
21 |
|
22 |
Finally, forcing downgrades _is_ broken (are you using stable?). If |
23 |
that's not clear, I'm totally for putting it in the devmanual/quiz or |
24 |
some other place like that. |