From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FDm0F-0000Lq-D7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:17:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1RHFlQh030288; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:15:47 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1RHBTQD005013 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:11:30 GMT Received: from [213.121.151.206] (helo=snowdrop.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1FDluD-0001pS-HH for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:11:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop.home) by snowdrop.home with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FDlu8-0002zK-L0 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:11:24 +0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:11:21 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision Message-ID: <20060227171121.72578b50@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <44032CDF.800@gentoo.org> References: <20060224141940.16864042@snowdrop.home> <1140989422.12229.72.camel@demandred.gnqs.org> <20060226214011.13636962@snowdrop.home> <200602271103.05384.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20060227163319.7f81cd6a@snowdrop.home> <44032CDF.800@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.8.12; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_K21z2l1sYINTwDErAgMg/W."; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: f908fb47-920a-46d8-a1b6-97e19b8690d7 X-Archives-Hash: da9980d40258426dbadac15eb08404a0 --Sig_K21z2l1sYINTwDErAgMg/W. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:46:23 -0600 Lance Albertson wrote: | Where is this general consensus documented (other than an email sent | out a few days ago). I'd have to go with Paul on this assumption. I | don't see the problem with keeping a package such as stu's in portage | as long as it doesn't affect other users. Do you honesty expect that | we will get a sterile tree out of this? Please focus your QA efforts | are more important and visible issues. Going on a witch hunt to fix | one problem compared to the bigger issues we know we have is simply | silly. This is really starting to look like a power issue rather than | a QA issue. You know, funnily enough, QA has filed a whole heap of bugs on the conflicting digest issue. With every other maintainer for bugs we've filed, the developer in question has worked with us to fix the issue, and thanked us for pointing out the problem. The only reason this one has gone so far is because of Stuart repeatedly closing the bug off and refusing to discuss alternatives. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Sig_K21z2l1sYINTwDErAgMg/W. Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEAzK896zL6DUtXhERAlYwAKCmWBKVJz13BLFaD+YwS2kWmnl92wCfdL4n 6kxdsOuTe0Fz6RUEdQgDeCQ= =OuGo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_K21z2l1sYINTwDErAgMg/W.-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list