From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RAciv-0000sD-J9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:14:01 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C026421C08F; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DD321C042 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:13:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.24] (e178072072.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.72.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 140A01B4026 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E896086.7010301@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:13:10 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110827 Firefox/6.0 SeaMonkey/2.3.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild References: <20111001170259.E4D702004B@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <4E875C08.4050906@gentoo.org> <4E87A5E2.2030709@gentoo.org> <4E881EC1.5030008@gentoo.org> <4E8930A7.9020301@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4E8930A7.9020301@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 75727ab03f318973fc45a18eaa103571 "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." schrieb: > I find the back-and-forth or the "edit war" most disturbing. Okay, so > the package got removed and re-introduced, and removed and re-introduce= d... There is no edit war, I restored the package once because I assumed it was mistakenly removed too early. When it was removed again then it became clear that it was willful action and so I refrained from further commits. Also QA told me to not add it back again. > In fact, it seems it would be best to let you guys talk on irc and agre= e > on some solution. I wrote to ssuominen on #gentoo-dev IRC, first time on 2011-10-01 11:42:49 UTC after the first removal, last time on 2011-10-02 13:01:41 UTC after second removal. A discussion between him and other developers ensued, but I never got a direct reply from him. His only reaction that was likely directed at me was "grr, who is chitchan.." at 2011-10-01 18:14:10 UTC, after I restored qutecom. > Finally, forcing downgrades _is_ broken (are you using stable?). If > that's not clear, I'm totally for putting it in the devmanual/quiz or > some other place like that. I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply. The arguments I have heard about why downgrading linux-headers is bad is that it may cause unspecified problems with glibc build (why doesn't glibc depend on proper linux-headers version then?). And something about out of tree compiles. ssuominen himself mentioned https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D311241#c2 but that talks about libraries not headers. And a bug comment can hardly be called authoritative documentation. Best regards, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n