"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb: > I find the back-and-forth or the "edit war" most disturbing. Okay, so > the package got removed and re-introduced, and removed and re-introduced...
There is no edit war, I restored the package once because I assumed it was mistakenly removed too early. When it was removed again then it became clear that it was willful action and so I refrained from further commits. Also QA told me to not add it back again. > In fact, it seems it would be best to let you guys talk on irc and agree > on some solution. I wrote to ssuominen on #gentoo-dev IRC, first time on 2011-10-01 11:42:49 UTC after the first removal, last time on 2011-10-02 13:01:41 UTC after second removal. A discussion between him and other developers ensued, but I never got a direct reply from him. His only reaction that was likely directed at me was "grr, who is chitchan.." at 2011-10-01 18:14:10 UTC, after I restored qutecom. > Finally, forcing downgrades _is_ broken (are you using stable?). If > that's not clear, I'm totally for putting it in the devmanual/quiz or > some other place like that. I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply. The arguments I have heard about why downgrading linux-headers is bad is that it may cause unspecified problems with glibc build (why doesn't glibc depend on proper linux-headers version then?). And something about out of tree compiles. ssuominen himself mentioned https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311241#c2 but that talks about libraries not headers. And a bug comment can hardly be called authoritative documentation. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
