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 E404E138010 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 613E521C15A for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C281A21C03A for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (110.Red-2-137-33.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.33.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87A5833D856 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:41:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 13-11-2012 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <50904F66.8070808@gentoo.org> References: <20121030150024.GU85698@gentoo.org> <50904F66.8070808@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-j+7B7NPo1Z+vYNW8nXNX" Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:41:08 +0100 Message-ID: <1351665668.2026.24.camel@belkin4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: 05d47515-5ce8-4834-86ec-5b9e969943d9 X-Archives-Hash: c339aac9ca78ec761f23f705d39e40bc --=-j+7B7NPo1Z+vYNW8nXNX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mar, 30-10-2012 a las 23:06 +0100, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB= =85n escribi=C3=B3: [...] > 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. >=20 > 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 If the policy exists and is not repealed, state what is done with 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?) >=20 >=20 > Best regards, > Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n >=20 I understand your point and agree [...] > [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D439714 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. --=-j+7B7NPo1Z+vYNW8nXNX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlCQyAQACgkQCaWpQKGI+9SnvQCfXBqPiEoqdRWISk/wlmV0ScyV lvoAnR1OkCHnWhG691/ODCZa9mXm1Yht =td3g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-j+7B7NPo1Z+vYNW8nXNX--