>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > You're missing some context. In October of last year, a QA team member > broke dependency resolution on a lot of systems by making the same sort > of change that this patch proposes:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/64c42804eb4cf4bc7d1161a2e9222c6a Which is very different from what this patch suggests. For example, virtual/pam had been package masked at the time, while mgorny's patch explicitly says that a virtual should _not_ be masked prior to its removal. > Last month, someone brought up that example and named the QA team as > partly responsible for the --changed-deps requirement, which goes > against the PMS and a council decision: > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/dcebabbd6f13aed6622424d439f7becc Again, very different case which had nothing to do with removal of a virtual. > Shortly thereafter, another QA member opened a pull request that would > retroactively make what the first QA member did OK: > https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual/pull/177 See my first paragraph above. > And now, we are having a third QA team member in charge of approving > that change to the devmanual, which will later be cited as "policy." > Your problem is that you're not a member of the right gang. Ad-hominem attacks won't help us here. Ulrich
