On 10/02/2011 02:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Samuli Suominen schrieb: >> On 10/01/2011 08:02 PM, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen (chithanh) wrote: >>> chithanh 11/10/01 17:02:59 >>> >>> Added: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild >>> Log: >>> Bring back qutecom. >> >> Bringing back version of qutecom, that is forcing downgrade on >> linux-headers, when >= 2.6.38 is being stabilized is completely >> unacceptable. > > Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that > downgrades are unacceptable. > >> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form. > > It sets correct dependency on an existing ebuild in tree. The dependency > is only build time, users can upgrade linux-headers again afterwards. > The application itself is v4l2 compatible.
common sense... http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c5 linux-headers -> glibc. no package should force downgrade on linux-headers, risking glibc building against older version than KEYWORDS visibility would allow. > What I am a bit unhappy about is that the package was masked and removed > while I was away. Even bypassing the usual 30 days and no last rite > announcement was sent to -dev. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_5e6d8403c90549d8caf4f27f0d14f01f.xml > Bug 361181 is certainly on my TODO list, just not very high up to now. > If you think that there is some urgency in getting rid of the package, > please do explain so in advance. The time ran out with opening of http://bugs.gentoo.org/384733 for linux-headers reverse deps to be tracked stable. I've removed qutecom for you again. - Samuli
