Samuli Suominen schrieb: >>> Poor example to make a case. >> >> VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on >> any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no >> matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to. > > And your point is?
My point is that packages can cause downgrades through "<" dependencies. There is no rule against it. Maybe going through upgrade/downgrade cycles is inconvenient for some users, or downgrades affect a package that you are particularly interested in. That still doesn't make it justified to remove a package against the maintainer's wishes. And certainly not to remove it twice cutting short the required treecleaning process, the second time _after_ I have stated to be willing to fix the bug and challenging you to point out the authoritative documentation my ebuild was in violation of. >> And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals. > > The fact that the *common sense* snippet was inserted in this document, > but isn't documented else where... doesn't make it any less true. It may be obvious to you, but it certainly is not obvious to me why linux-headers downgrade is so bad. If vapier's unsupported out-of-tree software fails to build against old linux-headers, then he has to make sure to have the correct version installed before proceeding. Blaming that on qutecom is far-fetched IMO. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
