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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-48188-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1REPT8-0000QH-8a
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:53:22 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55E2721C16D;
Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:53:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED5221C0E3
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:52:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so2206816bkb.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=6SGOZCrR0cRuXoWrMTJo0nNIOXX2ym8ADlueGCUWrU8=;
b=Wuv1V9RquY18nKuV8WPkilG5UK4jJD1vlPDU0FhhrJta2kAa0gsC358Le+FN9BQzMC
By11MkNEgf9rJLGi7etnd3opTCv/AeBj03b0LM8FL6ZVeCzryVVPyMTp/7/LO4uGUjsg
/G9bj+/3g5KvBdAkdyGy1//KHbxupwy5usjIU=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.7.198 with SMTP id e6mr3732503bke.80.1318528357224; Thu,
13 Oct 2011 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.204.72.195 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E9723A1.4080603@gentoo.org>
References: <20111001170259.E4D702004B@flycatcher.gentoo.org>
<4E96226D.8060807@gentoo.org>
<4E9629A7.3080405@gentoo.org>
<201110122019.02773.vapier@gentoo.org>
<4E965A76.1040109@gentoo.org>
<4E96FF2F.8090705@gentoo.org>
<4E9723A1.4080603@gentoo.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:52:37 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: VM9smooGgpQISANRpbcM8K48tHg
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=ny6zAAu93pmo+dS5WvdQ6opFDBhO6eqndGkdPXY6TRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in
net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 1a4d61997db34596f92bb04f43633ddc
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Merely saying if we had some documentation snippet, or an end-quiz
> question for this, QA could more easily/faster revoke access if someone
> were to do this intentionally in tree. This could be minor motivation
> for me to write such snippet, but it's definately not near top on my TODO.
I think that something that is worth an official policy is whether in
fact "<" or "=" dependencies are acceptable, or in general when they
are acceptable. That isn't to say that we have to enumerate all
possibilities, but there should be guidelines.
I don't think there really is a clear consensus on this. It is
definitely a can of worms and I don't think black-and-white is the
right approach to take. While slotting libraries is often an option,
that gets a lot messier when you're talking about things like header
files.
Rich