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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- 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 --]