| 1 |
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:29:19 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> El dom, 13-06-2010 a las 14:43 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: |
| 5 |
> > El dom, 13-06-2010 a las 14:16 +0300, Petteri Räty escribió: |
| 6 |
> > > On 06/11/2010 12:27 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > From my point of view, I would prefer to: |
| 10 |
> > > > 1. Mask "caps" for net-wireless/bluez on affected arches, |
| 11 |
> > > > letting us to keep bluez keyworded. |
| 12 |
> > > > 2. Open two bug reports as done with current policy: one for |
| 13 |
> > > > keywording libcap-ng and other to check bluez works ok with it |
| 14 |
> > > > asking arch team to unmask that USE flag if possible. |
| 15 |
> > > > |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > There's nothing preventing you from already doing this. |
| 18 |
> > > package.use.mask is something package maintainers themselves |
| 19 |
> > > should be looking after for their packages. |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > Regards, |
| 22 |
> > > Petteri |
| 23 |
> > > |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > OK, thanks a lot :-D |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The problem is that hppa team seems to not allow others than they to |
| 29 |
> edit their package.use.mask :-/, is there any special reason for it? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
What is the problem? The files in place ask you to file a bug report |
| 32 |
instead of fiddling with the files yourselves. I put that in place |
| 33 |
because I got (fucking) tired of seeing the after effects of people |
| 34 |
fiddling with the arch profile files without 1) consideration, 2) |
| 35 |
informing the involved arch team. What do you expect? File a bloody bug |
| 36 |
report detailing the (commit) problem you are facing and you will |
| 37 |
probably see 1) response and 2) cooperation. If you fuck around with |
| 38 |
the arch profile files without doing any of that, you will face 1) a |
| 39 |
lack of willingness to cooperate and 2) evil wrath. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
jer |
Archives