On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:02:41 +0200 Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is, > > and if you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then > > not implementing it at all until you have suitable features. > > Sorry to make this old thread pop up again but, no, it is not > acceptable to not ship packages like webkit just because you dislike > the solution we used to workaround a well known problem in ebuild > packaging.
No-one is saying "don't ship webkit". What is being asked is that a) you ship webkit with a subset of functionality disabled if necessary for now, and b) that you provide a general description of what you can't provide cleanly using existing functionality. If you really think it's necessary to come up with a workaround like this, though, then you should be mailing the list and asking for QA or Council approval, rather than doing it and then asking for forgiveness later. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
