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 7991B13877A for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4583E0AFB; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E58DCE0AEE for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:30:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (assk.torservers.net [78.108.63.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97BC133FD86 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53A034F4.2000900@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:30:44 +0000 From: hasufell 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] Re: Re: Re: crossdev and multilib interference References: <53208139.2040509@gentoo.org> <1660834.UE1ARX9orZ@vapier> <20140327084108.GA3654@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <31757180.gTPZtqku3h@vapier> <20140330095348.GA18419@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <539E03A9.3010109@gentoo.org> <539E0563.3080302@gentoo.org> <539EF323.7020208@gentoo.org> <1402944163.8309.2.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <539F462E.6050905@gentoo.org> <20140616214257.096c93fc@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <539F49C2.6090008@gentoo.org> <539F4DFA.7020706@gentoo.org> <539F5288.1000000@gentoo.org> <539F5AB5.7000006@gentoo.org> <539F6B3C.7030807@gentoo.org> <539F8000.5080804@gentoo.org> <539F9E41.9050505@gentoo.org> <539FA536.3010401@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <539FA536.3010401@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 38afaff7-b553-4738-942a-240134cb7d2e X-Archives-Hash: c23fb8b1ad7e6983bb55f768151025b4 Joshua Kinard: > On 06/16/2014 21:47, hasufell wrote: >> Joshua Kinard: >>> >>> How big of a patch would this change require to the existing crossdev ebuild? >>> >> >> Probably quite trivial, but since vapier said "bs" to that proposal >> (translates to "bullshit" I guess) I'll not put any work into that. >> >> So there we go. If you are cool, you can just say "bs", vanish and leave >> stable arch in a broken state. >> >> Not even QA cares. Great. I'll try to get it on the next council agenda >> then. > > So you just take your ball and go home then? That's not how it works. > > Create the patch, and file it as a bug. Then, raise awareness on the ML. > That's how development works. If your patch is reasonable and doesn't break > things, odds are likely it'll push the other members of toolchain to > consider incorporating it. > > Equally using the Council as a hammer all the time doesn't work in the > long-term, either. If you whip a patch up, however, then not only could you > raise this at the next council meeting, but additionally state you've gone > that extra mile and created a patch that addresses the problem. > > That's taking the ball and putting it into the goal. > No, that's not how opensource works. You don't work on things after "upstream" said "not interested". https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504824