On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300 > Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question >> your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected >> cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this >> "attack" either. > > Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer. I could > have sworn that was written down somewhere.
I think there was error on both sides here. 1) QA should have some documentation regarding when they will take action. I've gotten Samuli and Diego to note that this would be a good idea; so I hope that gets done in the future. 2) There was miscommunication on the bug. In comment #13 Samuli mentions that 'I'm fine with switching to bundled libpng14 for now, but I'm not going to work on it either.' Hanno then bundles libpng only to be told later in the day that that is wrong. Please try to communicate clearly with each other. 3) Maintainers (and upstreams) are not always responsive. The bug was opened in February and wasn't really worked on until recently. When you are making a treewide change like a lib upgrade you do have a to pick a point where 'enough' people have upgraded and you just break (or mask in this case) everything else. If the folks want the package in the tree they can fix it; thats the whole point of masking (providing a notification and a fix-it interval.) Samuli, this interval is why we mask for 30-60 days also...so try not to shrink the interval without a good reason. -A > > > -- > fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense > toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime > @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 >
