On July 29, 2020 9:59:17 AM EDT, Thomas Deutschmann <whi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>On 2020-07-29 15:46, Aaron Bauman wrote:
>> Yes, net-nntp/sabnzbd is valid as it still has an ebuild with only
>> py2.7. So fix it instead of bitching and being lazy about it. You
>> could have done that vice revert the commit.
>What are you talking about?!
>When upstream released first version supporting Py3, it was added to
>repository. So don't call me lazy!
>Like you can see, it's currently in RC state. No cleanup of previous
>stable version will happen before this version was declared stable.
>So no, your list was wrong.
>> I will revert your revert when I return to my laptop. Thanks for
>> nothing.
>...and not just because of net-nntp/sabnzbd like this thread has shown.
>I followed Gentoo policy when I reverted a broken commit.
>If can only urge you to revise pkg list and pay more attention for your
>next commit.

None of it is stable. So, what's your point?

The commit is not broken. It just masks a package you care about which has 

Adjust the mask, drop the ebuild, or simply remove the mask. I would happily 
apologize for a mistake, but reverting something that is largely not in error 
seems silly. 

Again, this is a massive commit, but it should be the last time. Look at the 
previous sets of masks... impact vs inconvenience was pretty low. 

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Reply via email to