On Sunday, October 02, 2011 08:58:19 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > 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.
forcing downgrades of random packages is extremely poor behavior. it doesn't matter if it's DEPEND or RDEPEND behavior. if your one package is the last thing to get installed, then you leave the system in a poor state. further, when the newer version gets stabilized and then the older ones dropped, what then ? your package is broken. > > 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. skipping 30 days is a bit premature, but re-adding it at this point doesn't make sense. fix it and re-add it, or don't re-add it at all. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
