From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D44138825 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AA03E0872; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:59:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96960E0831 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:59:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (ip70-181-96-121.oc.oc.cox.net [70.181.96.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB60333DF72 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <545D6AD8.5080706@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:59:04 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1 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] RFC: new QA_NEEDED variable for files installed by pre-built binary packages with broken soname dependencies References: <545D17BF.10202@gentoo.org> <545D2269.5050603@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: d13ff84b-0731-4c28-99a3-b8f2945cf240 X-Archives-Hash: 8b2ab9611d6cbd9af14b87ea73a758c4 On 11/07/2014 03:25 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 7 November 2014 13:50, Zac Medico wrote: >> Yeah, I figured that we'd get a reaction like this. I just thought I'd >> start by proposing some sort of compromise, and then let others fight it >> out. :) > > Since we got to a positive conclusion on the bug, let's not consider > this proposal worth our time any more, shall we? Okay, sure. I'll save it for the day when someone finds a valid reason to install binaries with broken soname deps (not likely). -- Thanks, Zac