Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

2011-10-03 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
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 removed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

2011-10-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:48:55 -0700 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

2011-10-03 Thread Ulrich Mueller
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 foo-2 ), if your package needs some feature that was split

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

2011-10-03 Thread Samuli Suominen
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 have seen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild

2011-10-03 Thread Rich Freeman
2011/10/3 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org: 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

[gentoo-dev] last rites: games-fps/quake3-rally

2011-10-03 Thread Michael Sterrett
# Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org (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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [GLEP59v2 5/5] GLEP59: Change live Manifest2 hashes to SHA256, SHA512, WHIRLPOOL

2011-10-03 Thread Zac Medico
On 10/02/2011 05:21 PM, Zac Medico wrote: On 10/02/2011 04:22 PM, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:10:09PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: I've implemented it with booleans in this commit:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [GLEP59v2 5/5] GLEP59: Change live Manifest2 hashes to SHA256, SHA512, WHIRLPOOL

2011-10-03 Thread Zac Medico
On 10/03/2011 04:43 AM, Brian Harring wrote: On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:48:55AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: After some thought, I like the space delimited approach better. Here's the patch, which retains the ability to remove the manifest hash settings from layout.conf after they become