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 1RE6aa-000162-VI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:43:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDAD521C1DA; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:43:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932C521C1AC for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.20] (e178074017.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.74.17]) (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 ADE0B1B4004 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E9609D7.5070004@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:42:47 +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> <201110021611.03344.vapier@gentoo.org> <4E88CC32.9020708@gentoo.org> <201110121452.20572.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201110121452.20572.vapier@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: 1a1aa0ed6d87c09f1d30c6da186009c6 Mike Frysinger schrieb: > otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post. If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it, then it is obviously not common. >> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or >> announcement. > well, it shouldn't have been re-added in the first place Why not? Nothing in the Gentoo documentation forbids adding an ebuild which downgrades linux-headers or any other package. And it is not that I dumped the package to rot there. In my email to -devel I said that I was going to address the problem that suddenly became so urgent. > i would not consider broken packages (i.e. qutecom) in the tree as basi= s for=20 > retaining the old versions of linux-headers. At no point I even suggested that old linux-headers versions be retained for qutecom. > your package is already broken,=20 > and removing the linux-headers would break that depgraph. The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. It builds and runs fine with the packages in portage. It may trigger a linux-headers downgrade, but if that really causes breakage in other packages (and I am not convinced, as you gave only vague arguments, and a Google search didn't turn up anything) then it could be reason for masking. But not reason for removal. Only after all