| 1 |
On July 29, 2020 9:59:17 AM EDT, Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>On 2020-07-29 15:46, Aaron Bauman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Yes, net-nntp/sabnzbd is valid as it still has an ebuild with only |
| 4 |
>> py2.7. So fix it instead of bitching and being lazy about it. You |
| 5 |
>> could have done that vice revert the commit. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>What are you talking about?! |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>When upstream released first version supporting Py3, it was added to |
| 10 |
>repository. So don't call me lazy! |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>Like you can see, it's currently in RC state. No cleanup of previous |
| 13 |
>stable version will happen before this version was declared stable. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>So no, your list was wrong. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> I will revert your revert when I return to my laptop. Thanks for |
| 19 |
>> nothing. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>...and not just because of net-nntp/sabnzbd like this thread has shown. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>I followed Gentoo policy when I reverted a broken commit. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>If can only urge you to revise pkg list and pay more attention for your |
| 26 |
>next commit. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
None of it is stable. So, what's your point? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The commit is not broken. It just masks a package you care about which has Py2.7. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Adjust the mask, drop the ebuild, or simply remove the mask. I would happily apologize for a mistake, but reverting something that is largely not in error seems silly. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Again, this is a massive commit, but it should be the last time. Look at the previous sets of masks... impact vs inconvenience was pretty low. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives