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

[Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>]

I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing
list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla.

Some background copied from the bug report:

(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > (In reply to comment #17)
> > > (In reply to comment #15)
> > > > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > > > I believe it is time to reconsider this now that systemd support is spread
> > > > > all over the tree.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so. If upstream ships it, we will install it. Otherwise we
> > > > don't. Most Gentoo devs (as well as users) do not use systemd, nor have it
> > > > installed. I don't think it can be expected of us to test and maintain
> > > > systemd related patches.
> > >
> > > I expect this to change in the future. We can't keep denying that a new init
> > > system exists and we need to at least provide a limited support for it (even
> > > though we can't test it ourselves).
> >
> > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init system
> > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for. But since you pushed
> > this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer of
> > this package.
> You seem to have ignored all the discussions in -dev where it was agreed to
> install systemd files without even a useflag.

I haven't ignored the discussion. We agreed to install systemd files
IF they are shipped by upstream.

> So really, if you disagree
> this is your problem since the community agreed to do it.

Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo
maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such
files.

And even if a few vocal members want that, that does not constitute
community agreement. As far as I'm concerned, if it is not in the
devmanual, or a council decision, it is not official policy. In that
case individual package maintainers can do as they wish.

> It is also NOT documented anywhere that Gentoo supports *ONLY* openrc.
> Just grep for "systemd_dounit" in the tree and see how many pakcages do that.

So? That does not mean that as package maintainer I have to accept a
patch to support a non-default init system. Some maintainers may
choose to do so, others may choose not to.

> It is very sad to be threatened over and over. If I do something then X
> people will be unhappy. If I do it Y people will be unhappy. So in this case
> I did what we agreed to do in the mailing list.

We did not agree on this. Package maintainers may do as they wish for
their own packages.

I already expressed my opinion twice in that bug report: if upstream
ships a systemd unit file, we will let the ebuild install it. But we
do not have to add a patch to enable systemd support where upstream
does not ship it.

Also, I am not "threatening" anyone. But if you so clearly disregard
my opinion as co-maintainer, then I see no way we can work together on
this.

> You will soon realize that your stance against systemd will make you
> disagree with more developers in the imminent future.

That may be the case, but as long as OpenRC is Gentoo's default, and
we are not forced to add support for systemd where upstream does not,
then we can all continue on our merry way.

It is in the nature of a big open source project like Gentoo that
there will be disagreements. But we can agree to respectfully disagree
and work out some policies that are acceptable for people with
different opinions.


(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init system
> > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for.
>
> Eh...
>
>  1) Who is "we"?
>
>  2) What exactly does this "we" people stand for?
>
>  3) Why does "we" stand aggressively opposed to an alternative init system?
>
> If you meant Gentoo, it stands for "... just about any application or need."
> [1] and I don't see why it would be aggressively opposed to an alternative
> init system which some of our users are experiencing a benefit from; apart
> from a rather small group of people that decide to behave strongly opposed
> to it.

The whole paragraph on that page says: "Gentoo is a free operating
system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically
optimized and customized for just about any application or need.
Extreme configurability, performance and a top-notch user and
developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience. "

Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization,
extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of
that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they
are not interested in working with Gentoo developers to see to the
needs of source-based distros. They stand for vertical integration
instead of customization and configurability.

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.

> > But since you pushed this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer of this package.
>
> If having systemd@g.o (or any other alternative init system, or any other
> developer permitted by them or a higher instance) add just a few characters
> you never need to touch and changing an unit file you don't want is too
> much, then you're just stepping away from the collaborative effort that
> pursues the goal as stated on the about page of Gentoo; we're all in this
> together, don't make hate tear you apart.

I am making a stand for what I believe in. That is not hate. I simply
think that systemd is a bad idea. But if others want to make it work
on Gentoo, that is their time to waste.

For my part, I simply wish to not be forced to add support for it in
packages I maintain.

> Are you going to stop maintaining
> any package alternative init system maintainers and users come nag you on? :(

That is not what this is about. I will simply do the same as I already
did on this bug: refer users to upstream.

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.

>  [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
>
> Hope you would reconsider, it isn't hard to CC systemd@g.o and let them add
> or change characters that don't stand in your way; in fact, when I'm bug
> wrangling I've started CC-ing them on any new "systemd unit request" bugs
> such they can help if the maintainer does not have knowledge in the area.

I don't want to do that. And as long as I am not forced to do so, I
will maintain the packages I maintain as I see fit.

> Similarly, I expect in the near future that OpenRC mantainers (and any other
> alternative init system maintainers) will do the same; because really, even
> some of our systemd developers are starting to forget how init files were
> implemented, nor are they able to easily test them.
>
> At least not until we get eselect init sorted out... :)

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer