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 303451381F3 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 19:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5B40E0BD0; Sat, 25 May 2013 19:53:24 +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 12CFFE0B89 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 19:53:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-69-207-16-110.buffalo.res.rr.com [69.207.16.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CFA833E01E for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 19:53:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51A116B1.8010902@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 15:53:21 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Thunderbird/17.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697) References: <51A0FF5E.5070304@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51A0FF5E.5070304@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 99217875-b3ef-4729-b512-505695c83838 X-Archives-Hash: 5790ef6793931735a3002676e657a293 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