Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 13-11-2012

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1287 bytes --]

El mar, 30-10-2012 a las 23:06 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
escribió:
[...]
> The reason why I think that forbidding < dependencies is bad is that
> in the case of x11 maintained packages, their development speed is
> non-uniform. Especially new xorg-server releases can have certain
> x11-drivers packages depend on old versions for weeks or even months.
> Masking xorg-server will hinder X.org progress for everyone else, and
> removing the drivers that continue to work fine with old xorg-server
> would be a disservice to users.
> 
> I therefore ask the council to:
> 1. State whether such a policy exists
> 2. If it exists, repeal this policy
> 3. If the policy exists and is not repealed, state what is done with
> packages in violation of that policy (e.g. must they be treecleaned,
> or is it sufficient to p.mask them or drop to ~arch?)
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> 

I understand your point and agree


[...]
> [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439714


But in this case, it's really trivial to fix (stabilize missing drivers)
and that will benefit all people, don't seeing a blocker, this is the
reason for me filling a bug for it and not for other xorg stuff that are
much harder to handle.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]