From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-63551-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 F0037138247
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:33:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87678E0B2E;
Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:32:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vb0-f49.google.com (mail-vb0-f49.google.com [209.85.212.49])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F5C1E0B1D
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:32:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id o19so1620699vbm.36
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:32:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=rke3yO0SW+tIlCzaQBgYknGgftN9HsOBjpBAaofu1lc=;
b=QW+T1R5g3tUnzHaey0ilHE149RvC4kEnZcW0wHrRHwU4akvAlW5skmihJP+DBaE/vd
XYOSCYmSKuQvcEobnB1N9T7qQwDuvhKy5SmwC3hqXOYx9+KAbvZ03r0z3eT1dXxSR5qe
6OigXgZ6fe8hTJL5+aaTnYog1NHOe1Bpv/sU4XiS5tlo81f/6WZ5zTm+LrhWldOtRGet
nlrkeCB7NKaECHaMyg2VaGJ+HyD06x5qKZGjmlag3lk61L9xYfz3dYsmuUA0SEITSxcG
O+/p3bRbLBx5zR6VyBzfF6h7JkpbJjup1vfVFUZADtH2/fOlqzLzJigSfHPpjkIXzIZL
bbmw==
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 10.52.33.147 with SMTP id r19mr430350vdi.37.1384432370210; Thu,
14 Nov 2013 04:32:50 -0800 (PST)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.108.199 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:32:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAB9SyzTB3Nqd8bsFpRoFvgU-RHuB4W7CG76La6qu-WQ4O7kS0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <slrnl86l1s.j7e.vaeth@lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de>
<20131113151012.04145837@gentoo.org>
<5283948F.1000409@gentoo.org>
<52841023.9010208@gentoo.org>
<20131114061328.09136f6f@gentoo.org>
<CAB9SyzTB3Nqd8bsFpRoFvgU-RHuB4W7CG76La6qu-WQ4O7kS0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:32:50 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: t7rmUaRmXoslLwIJp2sZuj0wE94
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_kJM+0_BykpaXCcxRXi9Tw2jz=jx3Khsa6Ou_3uX6mUOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 8eb35ee7-0e9d-43ce-bd1e-6b76ed4c5e4b
X-Archives-Hash: 9de1e09c4aa05d8c0b31d63a3cd8967a
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 14 November 2013 13:13, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wro=
te:
>>
>> And how is it possible to discuss anything properly in Gentoo?
>
> That's because we have no proper leadership. We're an anarchistic
> collection of people working at cross-purposes at the best of times.
> There is no direction, and very little accountability.
This seems to be an arrangement that everybody likes except when
somebody else does something differently than they would prefer...
We have a Council, and any issue can always be escalated there. We
also have Comrel, which is a better starting point for cases
concerning individuals vs policies.
However, so far I haven't really seen any real indications of what the
concern is here. 32-bit software on amd64 has always been a kludge,
and if anything the latest multilib eclass seems to be less of a
kludge. Apparently some argue that there is a better solution being
worked on, and that's great to hear. What exactly is the problem? If
the eclass were breaking things that weren't already broken and having
a real impact on ordinary systems I'd consider that a concern. If it
is just breaking things that never worked before then I'd just call it
an experimental feature.
The problem with having top-down leadership in a volunteer-based
organization is that it tends to drive away anybody who doesn't agree
with the leader. If a supreme leader said "mgorny has the right
solution to multilib - everybody is going to work to implement it"
that would probably cause more harm than good. Everybody wants a
supreme leader until the leader backs something they oppose.
Rich