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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- 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 --]