Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn writes:
> My point is that packages can cause downgrades through "<" dependencies.
> There is no rule against it.
Nearly all of which prevent the upgrade of the dependent package rather
forcing the downgrade of an already installed package.
On 10/2/11 8:26 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> Removing the package again seems to just be unnecessary when the
> maintainer has stated that he'll fix the problem. Would masking it
> till it was fixed not suffice? Seems like a bit unjustified to me
> (from information on this thread alone).
I find the
On 2 October 2011 13:50, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/02/2011 02:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
[...]
>> Bug 361181 is certainly on my TODO list, just not very high up to now.
>> If you think that there is some urgency in getting rid of the package,
>> please do explain so in advance
On 00:31 Mon 03 Oct , Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> It may be obvious to you, but it certainly is not obvious to me why
> linux-headers downgrade is so bad. If vapier's unsupported out-of-tree
> software fails to build against old linux-headers, then he has to make
> sure to have the co
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-10-02 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
media-sound/gnomeradio 2011-09-30 19:34:47 ssuominen
media-tv/xdtv 2011-09-30 19:36:11 ssuominen
net-im/qutecom
Really... it took me less time to chuck the new-videodev.patch from [1] into
src_prepare() and compile-test than it did to read the noise in this
thread... :)
HTH,
malc.
[1] http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/qutecom/2.2.1+dfsg1-2
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>>> Poor example to make a case.
>>
>> VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on
>> any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no
>> matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to.
>
> And your point is?
My point is that packages c
On 10/03/2011 12:37 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>
>>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which
>>> would justify mask and removal.
>>>
>>> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
>>> ATI/NVidia drivers
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which
>> would justify mask and removal.
>>
>> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
>> ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch
>> systems. Nobody in
On 10/02/2011 11:40 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> the system is functioning wrongly because you're forcing users to needlessly
>> upgrade/downgrade packages. in addition, packages in the tree aren't the
>> only
>> things to be considered. if the user is b
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> the system is functioning wrongly because you're forcing users to needlessly
> upgrade/downgrade packages. in addition, packages in the tree aren't the
> only
> things to be considered. if the user is building code that works fine
> against
> the latest stable, but
On Sunday, October 02, 2011 16:00:30 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> I agree that a downgrade is a bit inconvenient for users. But if another
> package is built later with DEPEND on newer linux-headers or emerge
> --deep option, then it will get upgraded again. As no package runtime
> depends
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> On Sunday, October 02, 2011 08:58:19 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
downgrades are unacceptable.
> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's curre
On Sunday, October 02, 2011 08:58:19 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> >> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
> >> downgrades are unacceptable.
> >>
> >>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form.
> >>
> >> It set
On 9/17/11 5:42 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> TLDR: Let's remove FEATURES="stricter" from developer profile, I bet
> most people have it disabled anyway and it doesn't seem useful.
This is now done. Nobody complained and there was +1 from Rafael Martins.
Enjoy a more usable developer profile!
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
>> downgrades are unacceptable.
>>
>>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form.
>>
>> It sets correct dependency on an existing ebuild in tree. The dependency
>> is only build time,
People using stable, are welcomed to join the effort in
http://bugs.gentoo.org/384733
We have finished reviewing the bugs, that blocked the linux-headers
tracker bug but as Diego's tinderbox doesn't run on stable, but on
~arch, it's very hard to track down everything
So on your stable system, try
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/02/2011 03:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> # Markos Chandras (01 Oct 2011) #
>> Unmaintained. Plenty of open bugs ( 219892, 230183, 303199 ). #
>> Replaced by dispatch-conf and/or etc-u
On 10/02/2011 02:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> On 10/01/2011 08:02 PM, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen (chithanh) wrote:
>>> chithanh11/10/01 17:02:59
>>>
>>> Added:metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> Bri
On 2 October 2011 03:57, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:19:26 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> > 17 tools
>> > 9 utils
>>
>> tools, and utils, what's the difference? perhaps pick one and unify them
>> into global USE flag
>
> Saying what? "Install optional tools or utili
20 matches
Mail list logo
