On July 29, 2020 10:18:10 AM EDT, Thomas Deutschmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2020-07-29 16:07, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
>> Package is ~arch exclusively so everyone using it was already
>upgraded.
>> Masking <3.0.0_rc1 is perfectly fine if you want to keep old while
>not
>> blocking py2-masks of dependencies.
>
>While I even disagree with that, this is not even what happened.
>
>And yes, I probably wouldn't have notice this and wouldn't care if only
><3 were masked.
>
>But again, that's not what has happened.
So, there we have it. You "wouldn't care" if it didn't touch *your* package.
Then, you couldn't simply fix it as another has suggested.
Typical. You will fight it vice saying, "yea, that was an option I could have
taken".
How do you disagree with users keywording that package *not* running the latest
version?
Further, if they are on a stable system running it as keyworded... They know
how to unmask <3 if they want to use the Py2 only version.
Silliness...
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
