Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Paweł Hajdan
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 03:49:49
Message-Id: 4E8930A7.9020301@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 Arun Raghavan
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.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies