1 |
Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
2 |
>>> Poor example to make a case. |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on |
5 |
>> any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no |
6 |
>> matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> And your point is? |
9 |
|
10 |
My point is that packages can cause downgrades through "<" dependencies. |
11 |
There is no rule against it. |
12 |
|
13 |
Maybe going through upgrade/downgrade cycles is inconvenient for some |
14 |
users, or downgrades affect a package that you are particularly |
15 |
interested in. That still doesn't make it justified to remove a package |
16 |
against the maintainer's wishes. And certainly not to remove it twice |
17 |
cutting short the required treecleaning process, the second time _after_ |
18 |
I have stated to be willing to fix the bug and challenging you to point |
19 |
out the authoritative documentation my ebuild was in violation of. |
20 |
|
21 |
>> And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> The fact that the *common sense* snippet was inserted in this document, |
24 |
> but isn't documented else where... doesn't make it any less true. |
25 |
|
26 |
It may be obvious to you, but it certainly is not obvious to me why |
27 |
linux-headers downgrade is so bad. If vapier's unsupported out-of-tree |
28 |
software fails to build against old linux-headers, then he has to make |
29 |
sure to have the correct version installed before proceeding. Blaming |
30 |
that on qutecom is far-fetched IMO. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
Best regards, |
34 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |