On 10/13/2011 03:10 AM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 10/13/2011 02:27 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >>> Mike Frysinger schrieb: >>>>> The removed qutecom ebuild was not broken at any time. >>>> >>>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the tree >>>> with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the depgraph. >>> >>> The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before. >> >> I'm not sure if you should have gentoo-x86 access anymore... This is scary. > > Come on. That's ridiculous, and nothing but trolling. Don't do that. > > Like in the pngcrush thread, miscommunications all around. > > Matt >
(see my reply to Mike. I admit that came out way too blunt. sorry Chi-Thanh, Matt.)
