From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-58968-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA1B198005
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:27:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 678A7E066B;
Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:27:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ve0-f177.google.com (mail-ve0-f177.google.com [209.85.128.177])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AD09E0630
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:27:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m1so4066211ves.22
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:27:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-received:sender:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to
:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=rsQXNrsbu9HQLm09t6qajqci/zj4J79HVMqQu3Dtho8=;
b=J204l/YJLExCbCI8O3nORWRmEqBnKjgmARbNIY3KFm1ztSQYiIz6z5iIrLWPshLLy5
nf6UOHtcVG0fRw20xEL6SleYYuMV+mWf8mxGgay5mHQeqYnhoW1H/A1zznlqjmmopM6y
ZHxqPSH1DW09e3dNPE/D70xowLkUvDRCrb0v5GYmgbTPtHI0fBHwkWZ9sboVyNickps1
8tk7LqaYNdPCrCiaHJXUTxBrdXe8XAm/2ktCclVoHYI10GmbALC9zXsCJSCLlxD6M69q
c6ZvWDL9MtVwv9UrE1toxoNHdKd6bywN2odTetK8BHj0lcNMQIibd4Wy+dEwU+3HP5qe
k6yA==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.219.80 with SMTP id ht16mr6433632vcb.30.1362328049502;
Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.220.4.78 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 08:27:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [75.147.136.182]
In-Reply-To: <CA+ZvHYFW6zF9AFDLFZVZeUSGKi4L121dEesmJzuLcVZsJDgLtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130302160257.B3FCB2171D@flycatcher.gentoo.org>
<5132F549.1020504@gentoo.org>
<CAAr7Pr-6EZB7E6aPcfphkvf+MZffpRhFJV3BakSP-CjFguYhhg@mail.gmail.com>
<51336170.1030802@gentoo.org>
<CA+ZvHYFW6zF9AFDLFZVZeUSGKi4L121dEesmJzuLcVZsJDgLtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 08:27:29 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: kR1ULTYczeJA7Xs1zJJvG9X6VUk
Message-ID: <CAAr7Pr_hBsY1qj8rmurcm7v6dbbUyRqw7uLtAoZm+5xjwtJgbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in
x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers: nvidia-drivers-313.18.ebuild ChangeLog
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1YBxkTKyNof8HxnjDtorVdO4nrTFD6wmItJoJm+4riVgoCD9qF0Bb6FwAGZDnBSOA0vtJ
X-Archives-Salt: 7c70c3b5-0727-437d-85bc-4a2a7989e458
X-Archives-Hash: 4d8157e5f142921855108d97341d5379
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Carlos Silva <r3pek@r3pek.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:42 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> What do we have useflags for in gentoo?
>>
>> add a "unsupported-kernels" useflag, mask it, add a clear statement in
>> the masking reason and be done
>
>
> Not a bad solution, still, I, as a user, don't think making the compilation
> work with a specific kernel should be considered "unsupported". How many
> times modules stop working because the kernel changed something that breakes
> compilation? And I'm not only talking about closed source drivers, even
> open source ones have this "problem", but in fact, they are fixed faster.
>
> Does the gentoo community really need this kind of strictness? Don't think
> so.
>
So I'm going to get a bit meta here, forgive me ;)
Currently the project more or less functions on herd and maintainer
'ownership.' Ownership of problems tends to be good in many cases. It
is clear who is responsible, we know who to contact to fix bugs and
ask questions of. This does lead to disagreements (such as this
thread.) Some developers want these patches and the package
maintainers disagree. In the current scheme, the package maintainer
always wins. This is the downside to ownership, ownership implies
control and responsibility. The package maintainers are against these
patches, they do not want to own them, and they do not want the
associated responsibility of users using them.
I don't even necessarily mind Samuli's commit (ask for forgiveness,
not permission), but I would mind if he put the patches back. The
package maintainer has spoken out about why they dislike the patches
and you should respect their opinion. The maintainers in this case
suggested an overlay, and they even offered point users to it.
This is the system we have; if you think it sucks (and it does,
sometimes) please propose something better.
-A