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 DE205198005 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:12:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 71FB2E07CC; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com (mail-oa0-f51.google.com [209.85.219.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89371E0790 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id h2so8030932oag.24 for ; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 10:12:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=r3pek.org; s=r3pek; h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=se2ko4UHnNRK1WJBB44V7BfzaQvIXDr3GZZSSctumwA=; b=T6UAD8vNOtD01GDdrvzDKWlgwuj4KUG1bnUwL3gfe/9uTwTU6XtW39rXYWzfd4rxjU T5JIoFZ0OUu8alCH+9wlB3Bq8Dzu0+urI25uv4mIWxLg5OKHeFt8YuYrKKx3D0ysqG3O vfWQRrdkCKEj3vaNKuZn29ox5PYsDZhatEFu8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=se2ko4UHnNRK1WJBB44V7BfzaQvIXDr3GZZSSctumwA=; b=GE8ebus2pv9/Jmi/AxVZRZCFr8gB/YPNpCJy0OVJPr8D6onL5JsppVNPA1UiWjlFI7 InPYoWPQlEihAyDgls/ZDvwdBFmLIhD859xlFAOcYVEujbeOuzoiztWzn9b68ON4Y+k5 U9VOcFW4eZlCEDqr3TY81ocTo/yiDWIKtBJ4y/E0Ug8M0ifznAlSNew3G3P42mrUvwnW ToHEM74uUiEng59b3wud571VtNJLJmg+FtTlUGCWgDN+SwEhoJriPgk4EGkRd1NAVqeA wPM6dm35vGINLGGynKTLeOj8fS4pOt4LqB9+cqbt0702BbiPQJZ2Kh1NjKzXQ5e4vTdk Zcqw== X-Received: by 10.182.8.70 with SMTP id p6mr13534216oba.90.1362334323518; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 10:12:03 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.76.34.36 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 10:11:42 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [194.140.232.218] In-Reply-To: <20130303113932.704258aa@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> References: <20130302160257.B3FCB2171D@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <5132F549.1020504@gentoo.org> <20130303113932.704258aa@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> From: Carlos Silva Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 17:11:42 -0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers: nvidia-drivers-313.18.ebuild ChangeLog To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444ea416b4f1604d7092da8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkA6hqeNvtwQa4BzzWZhpkJG240NL/b/rL3w2+k/5DY/QygiEbYKUDhkehzbDAXvwHRiSc+ X-Archives-Salt: c99ddcda-ec5d-43c3-bb24-a1f2b3896dfe X-Archives-Hash: 901eb35853ea7f4d8ddaf6bd2aa8b4d3 --f46d0444ea416b4f1604d7092da8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 23:11:44 -0800 > Alec Warner wrote: > > > I do not find their stance wholly unreasonable. They offered to point > > users at an overlay, if someone was willing to maintain the patches > > there (in lieu of user_patches.) The end result is that if users apply > > the patches, they will get an unsupported setup. There is a fear as > > well, that the patches may damage cards (since the patches are not > > supported by the vendor.) > > We're talking about updating an include path here. Some files moved. I > don't > think that justifies breaking stable. > Exactly my point. This a simple "make-it-compile-without-any-new-stuff", not "add-this-cool-new-feature-to-the-package" patch. There are differences in them... Again, it's just me, and i don't complain if the maintainer doesn't wan't to accept the patch, i'm just expressing my opinion. --f46d0444ea416b4f1604d7092da8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g= entoo.org> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 23:11:4= 4 -0800
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I do not find their stance wholly unreasonable= . They offered to point
> users at an overlay, if someone was willing to maintain the patches > there (in lieu of user_patches.) The end result is that if users apply=
> the patches, they will get an unsupported setup. There is a fear as > well, that the patches may damage cards (since the patches are not
> supported by the vendor.)

We're talking about updating an include path here. =A0Some files = moved. =A0I don't
think that justifies breaking stable.


Again, it's just me, and i don't co= mplain if the maintainer doesn't wan't to accept the patch, i'm= just expressing my opinion.

--f46d0444ea416b4f1604d7092da8--