Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Daniel Campbell]

On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

I'm not a dev (though I would like to be...), but consider me interested
in testing an opt-out method as well. I'm going to try INSTALL_MASK and
see what happens. I'm not sure if any of my packages have systemd units
yet, though.

As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is
generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s)
line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered
features. If Gentoo falls to systemd, there will literally be no
Linux-based distros left to prevent it from taking over, and as a result
Linux-based systems will become more and more tightly integrated,
killing the choice that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything.

That said, I realize that unit files don't intrude much on choice, and
I'm happy that there is discussion on finding ways around it and making
everyone happy (like INSTALL_MASK) instead of pushing ideas on users and
telling them to deal with it.

Out of curiosity though, is there a document that outlines how Gentoo
Council members are chosen, when/if decisions can be revisited, and/or
if a member's views are audited for neutrality? I'm somewhat interested
in the way decisions are made within Gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2503 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500
Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> I'm not a dev (though I would like to be...), but consider me interested
> in testing an opt-out method as well. I'm going to try INSTALL_MASK and
> see what happens. I'm not sure if any of my packages have systemd units
> yet, though.

Please fix your e-mail client to send replies to the mail you are
replying it, instead of the top mail in the thread.

> As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is
> generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s)
> line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered
> features. If Gentoo falls to systemd, there will literally be no
> Linux-based distros left to prevent it from taking over, and as a result
> Linux-based systems will become more and more tightly integrated,
> killing the choice that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything.

It is bad because ebuilds are not place to put politics into. If you
want to become dev, you should understand this. We are supposed to be
serious people. Serious people don't break user systems or refuse to
support them in the name of manifesting their wishes.

It is bad because it's not systemd that's losing, it's Gentoo. Except
for the fact that there's just a few people that take Gentoo seriously
these days.

Upstreams clearly show that they don't care. We can either sit
in the corner and resent, or we can work on improving the situation.
And going on flamewars or manifestations doesn't really improve
anything, you should know that by now.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/26/2013 01:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500 Daniel Campbell 
> <dlcampbell@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I'm not a dev (though I would like to be...), but consider me 
>> interested in testing an opt-out method as well. I'm going to
>> try INSTALL_MASK and see what happens. I'm not sure if any of my 
>> packages have systemd units yet, though.
> 
> Please fix your e-mail client to send replies to the mail you are 
> replying it, instead of the top mail in the thread.
> 
>> As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical 
>> integration is generally a bad idea with the sole exception of 
>> when your use case(s) line up perfectly with the ivory tower and 
>> you need all of the offered features. If Gentoo falls to
>> systemd, there will literally be no Linux-based distros left to
>> prevent it from taking over, and as a result Linux-based systems
>> will become more and more tightly integrated, killing the choice
>> that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything.
> 
> It is bad because ebuilds are not place to put politics into. If 
> you want to become dev, you should understand this. We are
> supposed to be serious people. Serious people don't break user
> systems or refuse to support them in the name of manifesting their
> wishes.
> 
> It is bad because it's not systemd that's losing, it's Gentoo. 
> Except for the fact that there's just a few people that take
> Gentoo seriously these days.
> 
> Upstreams clearly show that they don't care. We can either sit in 
> the corner and resent, or we can work on improving the situation. 
> And going on flamewars or manifestations doesn't really improve 
> anything, you should know that by now.
> 

Sorry, I sent the e-mail to the list under the wrong e-mail address
and retooled a forward to try to correct it. It seems my idea didn't
work. I'm using Thunderbird, so if this reply is screwed up as well,
I'd appreciate some insight to fix it.

I agree that user systems shouldn't be broken, and that devs should be
serious about their responsibilities. I'm not exactly sure how Gentoo
is losing out on anything, but that's probably because I'm biased
against systemd. From the opposite side of the fence, Gentoo may
become less relevant to the vertical integration people if it doesn't
support systemd in some form. It's a choice and thus it should be
supported. If INSTALL_MASK is really all that's needed to protect
anti-systemd people, then perhaps the Gentoo team doesn't need to do
anything at all, so that's awesome.

Each time I see this come up I wish there wasn't so much activism
present in the GNU/Linux world so people could focus more on fixing
problems and less on politics, but the politics have to be acted on
and/or against or it gets in the way of problem-solving and software
diversity.

I stick with Gentoo because most of the people working on it seem so
level-headed and keep the idea of choice in mind. I guess I'm
rambling, so I guess I'll close with a "Thanks".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRobu1AAoJEJUrb08JgYgH198H/38gtUviiMCV3GZGm/1kiORO
njwbiwqZm3HHycrUxDa5jOUt6HPN7MH+pTvNf/Cl16zv1/CxiOpr4oJHCJFUDTd7
3vpmexIeN82Qw3RKW3ADuwOxBjgUbPz+btMN8a2szVnwl524BHldD1wiQ9E6BxRy
zSbqWR3VcNeZpCD9nvXBj4C9CbXO738EWRcAugGG4/3Vw1ntuYGvhrZxeDEcZtFa
4sVaRI6MPuWetvF0KbgnLQc9N3XgSNidb+LyIaG6oO1wG3ODldrkKwtGLMu8/sG6
NA0CEH0MTTlb2ErdW/DT6g/++Wu6qz4aZc+XWwxj1wK9uTGWiK+sDzuhTzLrunM=
=T3wH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 08:55 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
> > As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is
> > generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s)
> > line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered
> > features. If Gentoo falls to systemd, there will literally be no
> > Linux-based distros left to prevent it from taking over, and as a result
> > Linux-based systems will become more and more tightly integrated,
> > killing the choice that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything.
> 
> It is bad because ebuilds are not place to put politics into. If you
> want to become dev, you should understand this. We are supposed to be
> serious people. Serious people don't break user systems or refuse to
> support them in the name of manifesting their wishes.
> 
> It is bad because it's not systemd that's losing, it's Gentoo. Except
> for the fact that there's just a few people that take Gentoo seriously
> these days.
> 
> Upstreams clearly show that they don't care. We can either sit
> in the corner and resent, or we can work on improving the situation.
> And going on flamewars or manifestations doesn't really improve
> anything, you should know that by now.
> 

It's also bad because you are affecting to a lot of people that can/want
to use systemd, forcing you to have semi-usable setups because of your
personal preferences.

[gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Ben de Groot]

I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing
list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla.

Some background copied from the bug report:

(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > (In reply to comment #17)
> > > (In reply to comment #15)
> > > > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > > > I believe it is time to reconsider this now that systemd support is spread
> > > > > all over the tree.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so. If upstream ships it, we will install it. Otherwise we
> > > > don't. Most Gentoo devs (as well as users) do not use systemd, nor have it
> > > > installed. I don't think it can be expected of us to test and maintain
> > > > systemd related patches.
> > >
> > > I expect this to change in the future. We can't keep denying that a new init
> > > system exists and we need to at least provide a limited support for it (even
> > > though we can't test it ourselves).
> >
> > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init system
> > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for. But since you pushed
> > this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer of
> > this package.
> You seem to have ignored all the discussions in -dev where it was agreed to
> install systemd files without even a useflag.

I haven't ignored the discussion. We agreed to install systemd files
IF they are shipped by upstream.

> So really, if you disagree
> this is your problem since the community agreed to do it.

Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo
maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such
files.

And even if a few vocal members want that, that does not constitute
community agreement. As far as I'm concerned, if it is not in the
devmanual, or a council decision, it is not official policy. In that
case individual package maintainers can do as they wish.

> It is also NOT documented anywhere that Gentoo supports *ONLY* openrc.
> Just grep for "systemd_dounit" in the tree and see how many pakcages do that.

So? That does not mean that as package maintainer I have to accept a
patch to support a non-default init system. Some maintainers may
choose to do so, others may choose not to.

> It is very sad to be threatened over and over. If I do something then X
> people will be unhappy. If I do it Y people will be unhappy. So in this case
> I did what we agreed to do in the mailing list.

We did not agree on this. Package maintainers may do as they wish for
their own packages.

I already expressed my opinion twice in that bug report: if upstream
ships a systemd unit file, we will let the ebuild install it. But we
do not have to add a patch to enable systemd support where upstream
does not ship it.

Also, I am not "threatening" anyone. But if you so clearly disregard
my opinion as co-maintainer, then I see no way we can work together on
this.

> You will soon realize that your stance against systemd will make you
> disagree with more developers in the imminent future.

That may be the case, but as long as OpenRC is Gentoo's default, and
we are not forced to add support for systemd where upstream does not,
then we can all continue on our merry way.

It is in the nature of a big open source project like Gentoo that
there will be disagreements. But we can agree to respectfully disagree
and work out some policies that are acceptable for people with
different opinions.


(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init system
> > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for.
>
> Eh...
>
>  1) Who is "we"?
>
>  2) What exactly does this "we" people stand for?
>
>  3) Why does "we" stand aggressively opposed to an alternative init system?
>
> If you meant Gentoo, it stands for "... just about any application or need."
> [1] and I don't see why it would be aggressively opposed to an alternative
> init system which some of our users are experiencing a benefit from; apart
> from a rather small group of people that decide to behave strongly opposed
> to it.

The whole paragraph on that page says: "Gentoo is a free operating
system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically
optimized and customized for just about any application or need.
Extreme configurability, performance and a top-notch user and
developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience. "

Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization,
extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of
that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they
are not interested in working with Gentoo developers to see to the
needs of source-based distros. They stand for vertical integration
instead of customization and configurability.

And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to
Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and
Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it.

> > But since you pushed this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer of this package.
>
> If having systemd@g.o (or any other alternative init system, or any other
> developer permitted by them or a higher instance) add just a few characters
> you never need to touch and changing an unit file you don't want is too
> much, then you're just stepping away from the collaborative effort that
> pursues the goal as stated on the about page of Gentoo; we're all in this
> together, don't make hate tear you apart.

I am making a stand for what I believe in. That is not hate. I simply
think that systemd is a bad idea. But if others want to make it work
on Gentoo, that is their time to waste.

For my part, I simply wish to not be forced to add support for it in
packages I maintain.

> Are you going to stop maintaining
> any package alternative init system maintainers and users come nag you on? :(

That is not what this is about. I will simply do the same as I already
did on this bug: refer users to upstream.

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.

>  [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
>
> Hope you would reconsider, it isn't hard to CC systemd@g.o and let them add
> or change characters that don't stand in your way; in fact, when I'm bug
> wrangling I've started CC-ing them on any new "systemd unit request" bugs
> such they can help if the maintainer does not have knowledge in the area.

I don't want to do that. And as long as I am not forced to do so, I
will maintain the packages I maintain as I see fit.

> Similarly, I expect in the near future that OpenRC mantainers (and any other
> alternative init system maintainers) will do the same; because really, even
> some of our systemd developers are starting to forget how init files were
> implemented, nor are they able to easily test them.
>
> At least not until we get eselect init sorted out... :)

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5991 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing
> list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla.

Since Bugzilla is down at the moment and it seems not to be mentioned
anywhere in the mail, the package is x11-misc/lightdm.

> Some background copied from the bug report:
> 
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > (In reply to comment #19)
> > > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init system
> > > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for. But since you pushed
> > > this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer of
> > > this package.
> > You seem to have ignored all the discussions in -dev where it was agreed to
> > install systemd files without even a useflag.
> 
> I haven't ignored the discussion. We agreed to install systemd files
> IF they are shipped by upstream.

Where? I don't even think I've seen a single statement like this on
the late threads.

> > So really, if you disagree
> > this is your problem since the community agreed to do it.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo
> maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such
> files.

We did agree that Gentoo maintainers are not supposed to work on
enabling systemd support if they don't want to. On the other hand, we
also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else
does the work for them.

> > It is also NOT documented anywhere that Gentoo supports *ONLY* openrc.
> > Just grep for "systemd_dounit" in the tree and see how many pakcages do that.
> 
> So? That does not mean that as package maintainer I have to accept a
> patch to support a non-default init system. Some maintainers may
> choose to do so, others may choose not to.

I'm afraid you're using the word 'patch' incorrectly here. If it was
about a patch, I would agree with you. A patch -- something that
actually modifies package sources or files currently installed by
package. A patch that could mean that our package diverges from
upstream or introduces new bugs for existing users.

A unit file is *not* a patch. It's a file. A file that is incorporated
into the package without modifying its existing contents or behavior
on non-systemd systems. It's not something that could really cause
problems for OpenRC users.

> > It is very sad to be threatened over and over. If I do something then X
> > people will be unhappy. If I do it Y people will be unhappy. So in this case
> > I did what we agreed to do in the mailing list.
> 
> We did not agree on this. Package maintainers may do as they wish for
> their own packages.

Package maintainers are to respect other developers, teams and users.
While their wishes are important, Gentoo rules and policies are even
more important. Much like quite a consistent experience for users.

> The whole paragraph on that page says: "Gentoo is a free operating
> system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically
> optimized and customized for just about any application or need.
> Extreme configurability, performance and a top-notch user and
> developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience. "
> 
> Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization,
> extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of
> that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they
> are not interested in working with Gentoo developers to see to the
> needs of source-based distros. They stand for vertical integration
> instead of customization and configurability.
> 
> And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to
> Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and
> Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it.

Protecting freedom through taking away the freedom of using systemd?
Makes sense really.

> > > But since you pushed this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer of this package.
> >
> > If having systemd@g.o (or any other alternative init system, or any other
> > developer permitted by them or a higher instance) add just a few characters
> > you never need to touch and changing an unit file you don't want is too
> > much, then you're just stepping away from the collaborative effort that
> > pursues the goal as stated on the about page of Gentoo; we're all in this
> > together, don't make hate tear you apart.
> 
> I am making a stand for what I believe in. That is not hate. I simply
> think that systemd is a bad idea. But if others want to make it work
> on Gentoo, that is their time to waste.

Gentoo is not about making stands or running vendettas. 'Sorry, you
have to use Ubuntu because we support the freedom of letting our
developers make stands against X'.

And yet *the others* have actually wasted their time to make it work.
And now you're angry at them for it. And actually wasting people's time
by reviving the same topic. Though you should expect that at this point
most of the developers will simply ignore the topic.

> > Are you going to stop maintaining
> > any package alternative init system maintainers and users come nag you on? :(
> 
> That is not what this is about. I will simply do the same as I already
> did on this bug: refer users to upstream.
> 
> 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.

Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you.
I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo
will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo.
And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then
write to ml about it.'

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> 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.
>
> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you.
> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo
> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo.
> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then
> write to ml about it.'

Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop
maintaining anything that installs a daemon.  As a developer you have
NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those
devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're
willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a
unit.

The very nature of Gentoo leads to situations where you'll get
requests from other devs to add support for crazy stuff to your
packages (X32, prefix, init systems, etc).  As long as somebody else
is willing to do the work to maintain it (as a developer or proxy) and
it doesn't hurt conventional users, we should cooperate.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Rich Freeman schrieb:
>> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you.
>> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo
>> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo.
>> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then
>> write to ml about it.'
> 
> Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop
> maintaining anything that installs a daemon.  As a developer you have
> NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those
> devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're
> willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a
> unit.

This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and
upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for
selinux policies.

> The very nature of Gentoo leads to situations where you'll get
> requests from other devs to add support for crazy stuff to your
> packages (X32, prefix, init systems, etc).  As long as somebody else
> is willing to do the work to maintain it (as a developer or proxy) and
> it doesn't hurt conventional users, we should cooperate.

With x32, I generally refused to apply the patches to x11 maintained packages
before they had upstream ack first.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Rich Freeman schrieb:
>>> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you.
>>> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo
>>> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo.
>>> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then
>>> write to ml about it.'
>>
>> Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop
>> maintaining anything that installs a daemon.  As a developer you have
>> NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those
>> devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're
>> willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a
>> unit.
>
> This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and
> upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for
> selinux policies.

In this case the developer adding the unit WAS a maintainer.  Nothing
prevents any dev from adding themself as a maintainer to any package.
My point was just that if people plan to stop maintaining packages
whenever this happens that they'll end up not maintaining many
packages, because it is a trend that will continue.  IMHO it isn't
really important for devs to co-maintain packages to add unit files,
but certainly they can do so. Developers don't own the packages they
maintain.

Splitting unit files into separate packages is just going to make us
look like Debian, with everything with a daemon having 15 packages in
the tree.  Would it make sense to split init.d scripts into a separate
package?

The Council already decided that the appropriate way to handle unit
files was to put them in the package, without a USE flag, and users
could mask them if they didn't want them around.

>
> With x32, I generally refused to apply the patches to x11 maintained packages
> before they had upstream ack first.

x32 generally involved code patches, which involve a lot more risk of
breakage to existing users and in general are a bigger pain since
anytime the underlying source changes you have to re-diff them.  I
could see more of a push for co-maintaining in this case.

Unit files are just files - you stick them in filesdir and in your
ebuild and generally you touch them about as often as you touch init
scripts, which is rare.  If a maintainer does have to touch their init
scripts and it was because a binary was renamed or something, then
they can just ping the systemd team if they want them to update the
units.

In any case, nothing is being appealed here.  Ben basically quit
maintaining a package, which is his right, and the remaining
maintainers are keeping the unit around.  The intent of the systemd
team isn't to get developers to quit, but frankly I don't think we
need to coddle people to the point where threats to quit are a reason
to not add units to packages.  I think Ben is making a mistake, and
frankly if you are trying to resist the systemd takeover then Gentoo
is one of your best options out there so you might as well make sure
the packages you use are well-maintained even if they also work for
systemd users.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1247 bytes --]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:02:26 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Rich Freeman schrieb:
> >> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you.
> >> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo
> >> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo.
> >> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then
> >> write to ml about it.'
> > 
> > Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop
> > maintaining anything that installs a daemon.  As a developer you have
> > NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those
> > devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're
> > willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a
> > unit.
> 
> This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and
> upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for
> selinux policies.

If we are to introduce split packages, we should start where doing it
where it actually *makes sense*, rather than doing that to work-around
stubbornness of uncooperative developers.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Luca Barbato]

On 5/25/13 6:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing
>> list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla.

Seems that *upstream* had to a bit of work in order to support the 
various bits of systemd (not just the simple unit apparently)

I can understand there is some hurry so somebody could gloat "and even 
Gentoo/Sabayon supports systemd", yet I wouldn't *rush* things and I 
would consider getting something sorted out sanely for everybody.

I doubt I would be treated that nicely if I start spamming all the 
upstreams about supporting runit and demand they to maintain those init 
rules.

We can be kind with difficult upstreams but just up to a point.

That said, I'd rather have set something along the lines of:

- get the eselect init machinery in place

- decide seriously if we want to consider units (and init.d files) as 
manpages and threat them in the same way. This way nosystemd in the 
features would spare you some files as it does for manpages.

- repeat the same treatment for openrc and runit runscripts.

The alternative of having split packages seems a waste of inodes, 
probably in the end having the package manager keep track of this data 
would be better.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Ben de Groot]

On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo
>> maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such
>> files.
>
> We did agree that Gentoo maintainers are not supposed to work on
> enabling systemd support if they don't want to.

OK, that sounds good.

> On the other hand, we
> also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else
> does the work for them.

Where is this policy documented?

>> [...]
>> And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to
>> Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and
>> Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it.
>
> Protecting freedom through taking away the freedom of using systemd?
> Makes sense really.

That would be similar to the way the GPL protects software freedom.
Does that not make sense to you either?

But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to
use systemd. You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to your
system by yourself, or use an overlay. There are various ways this
could be realized even within Gentoo.

But you seem to dismiss all of those, and will only be happy by
forcing maintainers to add support to packages they maintain, even if
they believe it is a bad idea.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1693 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On the other hand, we
> > also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else
> > does the work for them.
> 
> Where is this policy documented?

Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common
sense enough to me.

If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more
general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so
on.

> >> [...]
> >> And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to
> >> Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and
> >> Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it.
> >
> > Protecting freedom through taking away the freedom of using systemd?
> > Makes sense really.
> 
> That would be similar to the way the GPL protects software freedom.
> Does that not make sense to you either?

No. The initial version of that response even used 'FSF' but I've
decided not to flame it.

> But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to
> use systemd. You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to your
> system by yourself, or use an overlay. There are various ways this
> could be realized even within Gentoo.

You know how fragile that is, don't you?

> But you seem to dismiss all of those, and will only be happy by
> forcing maintainers to add support to packages they maintain, even if
> they believe it is a bad idea.

Do I? As far as I'm concerned, I always kindly asked on IRC or opened
bugs for it.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Where is this policy documented?
>
> Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common
> sense enough to me.
>
> If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more
> general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so
> on.
>

As others have already pointed out, we are an organization, not a CPU.
 We can't make EVERYTHING a rule, and devs should act in a cooperative
manner so that this remains the case.

Sure, this can be made into a policy, and if things get out of hand
I'm sure it will be.  I'm not quite sure I see the need yet, as we
don't have an example yet of a maintainer not cooperating with the
systemd team on the installation of init files (in the present example
Ben isn't actually a maintainer, since he stepped down).

If Ben wants to boycott systemd by not maintaining any packages that
support it, that is his choice.  I just suspect that the end result of
that will be that he'll end up not maintaining much of anything.  I'd
hate to see that happen, as it would be a loss for Gentoo.  But,
frankly, letting any one person dictate the direction of the entire
distro by essentially threatening to quit would be worse.

Gentoo is about choice - and the nature of choice is that most of the
choices it supports are ones that you wouldn't personally make.  We do
a reasonably good job letting everybody have their cake and eat it
too.  However, it really isn't an appropriate distro for absolute
purists of almost any kind - it reeks of compromise.  We package
proprietary software (we don't redistribute the copyrighted parts), we
more-or-less run on Windows/OSX, we support that X32 alternate
architecture that some believe has no useful purpose, and so on.

If you really want to influence the battle of the init
implementations, then write code, not emails.  Maybe that is a wrapper
that allows OpenRC to support systemd units.  Maybe that is more
functionality for OpenRC.  Maybe it is something else.  However,
trying to influence things by just spitting into the wind isn't going
to do much but get your face dirty. Sure, devs can quit, but that
isn't just a loss for Gentoo.  Frankly if your main goal in life is to
avoid systemd then you're better off supporting Gentoo which is likely
to support that option nearly forever far better than any other
distro.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Ben de Groot]

On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
>> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Where is this policy documented?
>>
>> Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common
>> sense enough to me.
>>
>> If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more
>> general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so
>> on.
>>
>
> As others have already pointed out, we are an organization, not a CPU.
>  We can't make EVERYTHING a rule, and devs should act in a cooperative
> manner so that this remains the case.
>
> Sure, this can be made into a policy, and if things get out of hand
> I'm sure it will be.  I'm not quite sure I see the need yet, as we
> don't have an example yet of a maintainer not cooperating with the
> systemd team on the installation of init files (in the present example
> Ben isn't actually a maintainer, since he stepped down).

In packages I maintain, I will not be adding any systemd related files.
All bug reports requesting such additions will be closed as an upstream
matter.

> If Ben wants to boycott systemd by not maintaining any packages that
> support it, that is his choice.  I just suspect that the end result of
> that will be that he'll end up not maintaining much of anything.  I'd
> hate to see that happen, as it would be a loss for Gentoo.  But,
> frankly, letting any one person dictate the direction of the entire
> distro by essentially threatening to quit would be worse.

Gentoo is evolving in directions I do not agree with. I am feeling less
and less at home here. More and more often it seems I am the
minority voice of protest. I am not enjoying this role, and increasingly
the thought arises that I should just get out of people's way and
find another place that is closer to my ideas of what a distro
should be.

> Gentoo is about choice - and the nature of choice is that most of the
> choices it supports are ones that you wouldn't personally make.  We do
> a reasonably good job letting everybody have their cake and eat it
> too.  However, it really isn't an appropriate distro for absolute
> purists of almost any kind - it reeks of compromise.  We package
> proprietary software (we don't redistribute the copyrighted parts), we
> more-or-less run on Windows/OSX, we support that X32 alternate
> architecture that some believe has no useful purpose, and so on.
>
> If you really want to influence the battle of the init
> implementations, then write code, not emails.

I am not a programmer, I am a simple package maintainer.

> Maybe that is a wrapper
> that allows OpenRC to support systemd units.  Maybe that is more
> functionality for OpenRC.  Maybe it is something else.  However,
> trying to influence things by just spitting into the wind isn't going
> to do much but get your face dirty. Sure, devs can quit, but that
> isn't just a loss for Gentoo.  Frankly if your main goal in life is to
> avoid systemd then you're better off supporting Gentoo which is likely
> to support that option nearly forever far better than any other
> distro.

If forcing Gentoo package maintainers to add systemd support
to packages they maintain is your idea of the best option to
avoid systemd, then I respectfully disagree.

Obviously I have better (and more fun) things to do.
--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/26/2013 11:21 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800
>>> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Where is this policy documented?
>>>
>>> Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common
>>> sense enough to me.
>>>
>>> If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more
>>> general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so
>>> on.
>>>
>>
>> As others have already pointed out, we are an organization, not a CPU.
>>  We can't make EVERYTHING a rule, and devs should act in a cooperative
>> manner so that this remains the case.
>>
>> Sure, this can be made into a policy, and if things get out of hand
>> I'm sure it will be.  I'm not quite sure I see the need yet, as we
>> don't have an example yet of a maintainer not cooperating with the
>> systemd team on the installation of init files (in the present example
>> Ben isn't actually a maintainer, since he stepped down).
> 
> In packages I maintain, I will not be adding any systemd related files.
> All bug reports requesting such additions will be closed as an upstream
> matter.
> 
>> If Ben wants to boycott systemd by not maintaining any packages that
>> support it, that is his choice.  I just suspect that the end result of
>> that will be that he'll end up not maintaining much of anything.  I'd
>> hate to see that happen, as it would be a loss for Gentoo.  But,
>> frankly, letting any one person dictate the direction of the entire
>> distro by essentially threatening to quit would be worse.
> 
> Gentoo is evolving in directions I do not agree with. I am feeling less
> and less at home here. More and more often it seems I am the
> minority voice of protest. I am not enjoying this role, and increasingly
> the thought arises that I should just get out of people's way and
> find another place that is closer to my ideas of what a distro
> should be.
> 
>> Gentoo is about choice - and the nature of choice is that most of the
>> choices it supports are ones that you wouldn't personally make.  We do
>> a reasonably good job letting everybody have their cake and eat it
>> too.  However, it really isn't an appropriate distro for absolute
>> purists of almost any kind - it reeks of compromise.  We package
>> proprietary software (we don't redistribute the copyrighted parts), we
>> more-or-less run on Windows/OSX, we support that X32 alternate
>> architecture that some believe has no useful purpose, and so on.
>>
>> If you really want to influence the battle of the init
>> implementations, then write code, not emails.
> 
> I am not a programmer, I am a simple package maintainer.
> 
>> Maybe that is a wrapper
>> that allows OpenRC to support systemd units.  Maybe that is more
>> functionality for OpenRC.  Maybe it is something else.  However,
>> trying to influence things by just spitting into the wind isn't going
>> to do much but get your face dirty. Sure, devs can quit, but that
>> isn't just a loss for Gentoo.  Frankly if your main goal in life is to
>> avoid systemd then you're better off supporting Gentoo which is likely
>> to support that option nearly forever far better than any other
>> distro.
> 
> If forcing Gentoo package maintainers to add systemd support
> to packages they maintain is your idea of the best option to
> avoid systemd, then I respectfully disagree.

Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file,
added by your co-maintainer, hurt you?  Did it cause additional bugs?
Did it break a working ebuild?  Did it kill your cat?

It would seem to me that the co-maintainer (a person who cares that some
users are interested in systemd enough to add one file to the package)
made the package support a slightly wider range of systems (gentoo is
about choice) and this affects you in exactly no way.

What am I missing here?  Are you just trying to force your will on
others or do you have an actual issue caused by this commit?  It is not
for us developers to force one way on the users, gentoo is supposed to
be about choice, your co-maintainer chose to support systemd, an action
which as far as I can see didn't harm you, and helped some users.  This
has been a very long thread for something I don't get at all.  Please,
seriously, what am I missing here?

- -Zero
> 
> Obviously I have better (and more fun) things to do.
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben | yngwin
> Gentoo developer
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=chEY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Matt Turner]

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file,
> added by your co-maintainer, hurt you?  Did it cause additional bugs?
> Did it break a working ebuild?  Did it kill your cat?
>
> It would seem to me that the co-maintainer (a person who cares that some
> users are interested in systemd enough to add one file to the package)
> made the package support a slightly wider range of systems (gentoo is
> about choice) and this affects you in exactly no way.
>
> What am I missing here?  Are you just trying to force your will on
> others or do you have an actual issue caused by this commit?  It is not
> for us developers to force one way on the users, gentoo is supposed to
> be about choice, your co-maintainer chose to support systemd, an action
> which as far as I can see didn't harm you, and helped some users.  This
> has been a very long thread for something I don't get at all.  Please,
> seriously, what am I missing here?

Thanks for asking this. After reading the 34 emails in this thread, I
still have this question as well.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 390 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 26. Mai 2013, 18:15:46 schrieb Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina:
> 
> Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file,
> added by your co-maintainer, hurt you?  Did it cause additional bugs?
> Did it break a working ebuild?  Did it kill your cat?
> 

+1

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:23 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
[...]
> But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to
> use systemd. 

You are doing as you are forcing them to have a semi-usable setup when
merging packages.

> You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to your
> system by yourself, or use an overlay. There are various ways this
> could be realized even within Gentoo.

Who are you to force people to use an overlay? Why are you forbidding
the inclusion of unit files? Maybe you could also have a separate
overlay called "systemd-haters" to maintain that ebuilds done to
obstacle systemd usage.

> 
> But you seem to dismiss all of those, and will only be happy by
> forcing maintainers to add support to packages they maintain, even if
> they believe it is a bad idea.
> 
Nobody is forcing you to maintain that unit file: the unit file will be
maintained by the other co-maintainer or systemd team if he cannot do
that.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 00:14 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
> I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing
> list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla.
> 
> Some background copied from the bug report:
[...]

Probably your following comment in bug report summarizes the real
reasons pointing you to not apply that patch after waiting a year for
upstream action:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412697#c8

Reading your comments in bug report gave me the impression of you
refusing to provide the unit file simply to try to interfere as much as
possible with getting higher systemd compatibility in Gentoo, even if I
don't see how adding the unit file will hurt openrc users and how it
will hurt you (as co-maintainer) when another dev is taking care of unit
file and systemd team can also maintain it.

We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
"boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Carlos Silva]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1889 bytes --]

Ben, you're really just being a child here. Is that a really big problem to
add a small text file to your package?! Is that a big maintaining burden?

If you can't test it, systemd team can, just like there are arch teams to
test packages on other archs the maintainers can't. It's not something that
changes code or functionality to that level that it can't be maintained
with help.

Nobody is forcing you to use systemd, there are just people how are asking
to let them use it.

You talk a lot about Gentoo is about choice, but you are not giving that
choice. You're forcing people to *not* use systemd (not using something
else), because you don't like it. Plain simple.


On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

> El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 00:14 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
> > I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing
> > list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla.
> >
> > Some background copied from the bug report:
> [...]
>
> Probably your following comment in bug report summarizes the real
> reasons pointing you to not apply that patch after waiting a year for
> upstream action:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412697#c8
>
> Reading your comments in bug report gave me the impression of you
> refusing to provide the unit file simply to try to interfere as much as
> possible with getting higher systemd compatibility in Gentoo, even if I
> don't see how adding the unit file will hurt openrc users and how it
> will hurt you (as co-maintainer) when another dev is taking care of unit
> file and systemd team can also maintain it.
>
> We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
> devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
> "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense.
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2528 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Ben de Groot]

On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
> devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
> "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense.

Common sense would be to recognize that systemd is a bad
implementation of a bad idea, and to boycott it distro-wide.

But you know what they say about common sense...

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:15 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
> On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
> > devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
> > "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense.
> 
> Common sense would be to recognize that systemd is a bad
> implementation of a bad idea, and to boycott it distro-wide.
> 
> But you know what they say about common sense...
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben | yngwin
> Gentoo developer
> 
> 

Call it then: don't hurt others only because you hate systemd. Again,
including that unit file won't hurt you at all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 784 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:18 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle
> > devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of
> > "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense.
> 
> Common sense would be to recognize that systemd is a bad
> implementation of a bad idea, and to boycott it distro-wide.
> 
> But you know what they say about common sense...

As in, say, lastrite GNOME and tell users to switch to other distro?
Or maybe everything using udev? Sounds much like the way to get
the 'one distro' dream some people have. But wasn't the intent opposite?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Luca Barbato]

On 5/26/13 9:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> As in, say, lastrite GNOME and tell users to switch to other distro?
> Or maybe everything using udev? Sounds much like the way to get
> the 'one distro' dream some people have. But wasn't the intent opposite?

eudev was made on purpose to let people avoid systemd if they wanted, 
and it is why people involved on it got stalked and had that much fun.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Markos Chandras]

-----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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
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=QRtO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[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.

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.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

What about INSTALL_MASK does not work?

I put the responsibility for designing a more idiot-proof opt-out
system in the hands of those that actually care about it. Most of us
are on systems with plenty of storage, and those who are not (embedded
devs) should be perfectly capable of setting INSTALL_MASK without
hosing their systems.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 05/25/2013 03:58 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> What about INSTALL_MASK does not work?
>
> I put the responsibility for designing a more idiot-proof opt-out
> system in the hands of those that actually care about it. Most of us
> are on systems with plenty of storage, and those who are not (embedded
> devs) should be perfectly capable of setting INSTALL_MASK without
> hosing their systems.
>
Maybe it is sufficient.  I seem to recall someone saying (either on the 
list or IRC) that it needed some work.  If its good enough, then problem 
solved.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

This already went before the Council, and the decision was that
INSTALL_MASK IS the working solution for opting out.  If somebody
wants to come up with a better one and propose it they're of course
welcome to, but in the meantime, INSTALL_MASK is the official
solution.

The whole point of having a Council is so that you don't have to reach
100.000000000% consensus on every single decision.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1367 bytes --]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:53:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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.

<snarky>

You could drop conf.d and init.d files to save space, unit files are
obviously smaller.

</snarky>

> 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.

INSTALL_MASK *is* a working solution. And I've designed
app-portage/install-mask which sets it up for you.

If you want something better, just integrate 'keywords' (like
'systemd', 'doc', 'man') into INSTALL_MASK, and be done with it. Just
make sure to store the list of recognized keywords in the repo rather
than keeping it rotting inside portage code.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Tiziano Müller]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 09:22 +0200, Tiziano Müller escribió:
[...]
> > 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
> 

Probably a better solution should be found but, until then, we should
behave with unit files like we behave for all other similar cases (like
logrotate, even init.d files for openrc, bash-completion files...)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1638 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:22:05 +0200
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
> > 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.

PMS doesn't cover configuration, and I feel this is mostly
a configuration problem.

> > 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?

Well, I don't know rsyslog and I have no real idea where those files
end up. But if they end up in a common directory, it's exactly the kind
of thing we can handle with INSTALL_MASK.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

[Ben de Groot]

On 26 May 2013 02:13, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> 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.

It is exactly because of our good history together that I was so
surprised and disappointed to see you disregarding my opinion in this,
and dismissing it as my problem.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer