On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 03:11:55 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > On 9 August 2013 21:57, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 13:45:25 > > Tom Wijsman napisał(a): > > > >> Your upgrade path is no longer an upgrade; the other ones are, and > >> as said before, running Gentoo has no implication that OpenRC must > >> be ran. > > > > I can think of at least a few examples where 'upgrade path' actually > > involved replacing one package with another and yet nobody complains > > about that. > > > > This one is *so special* just because we have a few folks which > > really have nothing useful to do and instead spit their systemd > > hatred on gentoo-dev@ and expect others to join their stupid > > vendetta. > > Please keep your insults off this list. You may want to deny them, but > there are valid reasons why people oppose systemd. It doesn't help to > keep so aggressively pushing it. Neither does it help to make statements like "People are free to use a saner desktop environment..." which add nothing to the discussion, which in fact can be seen as an insult as well; because "sane" basically stands for "free from mental derangement" or "free from being unreasonably, unsound judgment or bad sense" where both come close to what people will perceive as the negative form of "stupid". (Of course, his message can be perceived to insult in other ways; I won't comment on those, they seem to be based on a bit of annoyance) I don't see why this needs to be done almost every time a discussion that mentions the word systemd comes up; okay, there are people that oppose to it but can't they just ignore the discussion instead of making statements that really add nothing to the actual discussion? You may perceive things are being denied and think things are aggressively being pushed; but please note the "action, reaction" concept applies here and you are perceiving the reaction to what people that oppose to systemd are irrelevantly inserting into the discussion. "A saner DE" or "unmerge GNOME" doesn't answer "stabilize 3.6 or 3.8?"; I'm not going to summarize on the rest, but a fair bit doesn't answer. As for whether to stabilize GNOME, that's the maintainer's decision; unless the maintainer is forced to do otherwise by a higher instance, see the paragraphs of "Moving package versions from ~ARCH to ARCH" in the ebuild policy [1] which mentions that it is up to the maintainer. I think that the reasoning whether to stabilize 3.6 or 3.8 has long been given; so, unless someone wants to make a remark on that alone, there's probably no need to bump this out of bounds discussion anymore. There are different approaches to request that higher instances oppose; I'm pretty sure that they are willing to deal with systemd pushers, as in those that trying to go besides community and / or council consensus. Please, give it a rest; there is too much unnecessary talk for nothing. [1]: Ebuild policy - "Moving package versions from ~ARCH to ARCH" http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1#doc_chap4_sect4 -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D