From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3101381F3 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 07:22:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B635AE0CCB; Sun, 26 May 2013 07:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1A05E0CC6 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 07:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.104] (xdsl-188-155-33-54.adslplus.ch [188.155.33.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dev-zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6385433DF0E for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 07:22:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1369552925.8150.12.camel@storm> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697) From: Tiziano =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:22:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <51A116B1.8010902@gentoo.org> References: <51A0FF5E.5070304@gentoo.org> <51A116B1.8010902@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: dff60bed-bf82-42bd-9dcf-6ad8589d305b X-Archives-Hash: 6cdad8df96f2b021f3be1417761ecb62 Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: > On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > >> But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then > >> working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to > >> give up maintainership. > >> > > Ben, > > > > We've been working together, in the same team(s), for more than 4 > > years and we never had a single problem in co-maintaining packages. I > > would never expected you to make so much noise because I committed a > > file (yes a file, *not* a patch) that changes absolutely *nothing* to > > existing users but it helps all those users who want to use systemd. > > > > I am very disappointed and confused. > > > > You should have known me better by now. > > > > - -- > > Regards, > > Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang > > > > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not > providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd > integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I > don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding > unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, > regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space > aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering > ebuilds with USE flags. Even though I don't care about a couple of files more on my FS I would prefer to find a solution with functions provided by PMS, not portage alone. > > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. > Maybe we have to find a more generic solution for this, because there is bug #235944 [1] which request extra config snippets for rsyslog added to various packages. Or is this something different? If yes, how? Best, Tiziano [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235944