| 1 |
El mar, 30-10-2012 a las 23:06 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
escribió: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> The reason why I think that forbidding < dependencies is bad is that |
| 5 |
> in the case of x11 maintained packages, their development speed is |
| 6 |
> non-uniform. Especially new xorg-server releases can have certain |
| 7 |
> x11-drivers packages depend on old versions for weeks or even months. |
| 8 |
> Masking xorg-server will hinder X.org progress for everyone else, and |
| 9 |
> removing the drivers that continue to work fine with old xorg-server |
| 10 |
> would be a disservice to users. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I therefore ask the council to: |
| 13 |
> 1. State whether such a policy exists |
| 14 |
> 2. If it exists, repeal this policy |
| 15 |
> 3. If the policy exists and is not repealed, state what is done with |
| 16 |
> packages in violation of that policy (e.g. must they be treecleaned, |
| 17 |
> or is it sufficient to p.mask them or drop to ~arch?) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Best regards, |
| 21 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I understand your point and agree |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
[...] |
| 28 |
> [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439714 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
But in this case, it's really trivial to fix (stabilize missing drivers) |
| 32 |
and that will benefit all people, don't seeing a blocker, this is the |
| 33 |
reason for me filling a bug for it and not for other xorg stuff that are |
| 34 |
much harder to handle. |
Archives