| 1 |
On 2017-09-26 22:01, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If the only argument is you don't want to upgrade, I'm afraid there's |
| 4 |
> not much we can do to help you. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
You're right that I don't want to upgrade, and I have already explained |
| 7 |
my workaround for that. But that is _not_ what I'm complaining about in |
| 8 |
this thread. Rather, my complaint is that such a major change is hidden |
| 9 |
in an ebuild edit with no version/revision bump, which means I cannot |
| 10 |
use the normal means (ie. package.mask) to prevent it. Before I decided |
| 11 |
to drop Qt completely, I had to make a local package of qtcustomplot in |
| 12 |
my own repo. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Surely there are other reasons against this kind of thing? What if |
| 15 |
someone reports a bug in the package? Now you don't know from the |
| 16 |
version/rev number if it's linked with Qt4 or Qt5. Is that not |
| 17 |
important? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, |
| 21 |
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. |
| 22 |
Do obvious transformation on domain to reply privately _only_ on Usenet. |
Archives