Mike Frysinger schrieb: > otherwise, Rich summed up things nicely in his later post.
If you mean that common sense thing: if there is disagreement about it, then it is obviously not common. >> The second time the package was removed was even without mask or >> announcement. > well, it shouldn't have been re-added in the first place Why not? Nothing in the Gentoo documentation forbids adding an ebuild which downgrades linux-headers or any other package. And it is not that I dumped the package to rot there. In my email to -devel I said that I was going to address the problem that suddenly became so urgent. > i would not consider broken packages (i.e. qutecom) in the tree as basis for > retaining the old versions of linux-headers. At no point I even suggested that old linux-headers versions be retained for qutecom. > your package is already broken, > and removing the linux-headers would break that depgraph. The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. It builds and runs fine with the packages in portage. It may trigger a linux-headers downgrade, but if that really causes breakage in other packages (and I am not convinced, as you gave only vague arguments, and a Google search didn't turn up anything) then it could be reason for masking. But not reason for removal. Only after all <linux-headers-2.6.38 versions are removed, then it is indeed uninstallable and needs to be fixed or treecleaned. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
