If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their library, I could safely bump it from 2.1 to 4.0, in spite of the fact that it is maintainer-needed, right? Am I personally responsible for their decision to use the new name libunibreak? If there are QA problems in libunibreak-4.0.ebuild, they are surely shared by liblinebreak-2.1.ebuild (which is stable on amd64, ppc and x86, and ~arm). Why these problems were not cought for many years liblinebreak-2.1.ebuild is in the tree? (it is there from before the git migration, git log only shows trivial commits not changing its functionality)


Reply via email to