Samuli Suominen schrieb: >> 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 is not a library, it is strictly a build time dependency for all packages which I am aware of. > linux-headers -> glibc. no package should force downgrade on > linux-headers, risking glibc building against older version than > KEYWORDS visibility would allow. No idea where the risk in that is documented. If there is a danger in building new glibc against old linux-headers, it would surely deserve a notice somewhere? >> 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 > Ok sorry, I missed that mail for some reason. But 30 days were still bypassed. > 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. Please put it back in tree. You have my consent to remove it on 13 October (when the 30 days are over) and I have not fixed it yet. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
