"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." schrieb:
> I find the back-and-forth or the "edit war" most disturbing. Okay, so
> the package got removed and re-introduced, and removed and re-introduced...
There is no edit war, I restored the package once because I assumed it
was mistakenly removed too early.
When it was re
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:48:55 -0700
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> Finally, forcing downgrades _is_ broken (are you using stable?). If
> that's not clear, I'm totally for putting it in the devmanual/quiz or
> some other place like that.
We could just ban upper-bounded dependencies that aren't done
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> We could just ban upper-bounded dependencies that aren't done by
> slots inside ebuilds in future EAPIs...
That's probably going to far, as there are valid usage cases.
For example, "|| ( bar
On 10/03/2011 02:45 AM, malc wrote:
> 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
>
I hav
2011/10/3 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> I asked for authoritative documentation which forbids downgrades several
> times, but got only vague references (and "common sense") as reply.
>
While I'm all for documenting QA policies, ultimately common sense
does need to prevail. As I've commented be
# Michael Sterrett (03 Oct 2011)
# Looks like a rewrite which is only in alpha status from upstream.
# Masked for removal on 2002
# bug #338754
games-fps/quake3-rally
