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 3D2B21381F3 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C1E1E21C0EF; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:14:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 074B821C0ED for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id bj3so2755855pad.40 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:14:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version: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=YF+HSFPMBsDchU5kzH4LkVaYsjiXlVjhi/9Va8NcS+4=; b=m//25EJk7WAhu9RzOU0FlyLCKEoQrsjg4S9DjfV1OtHfdm8q/eT8Ft6PXMIzLpLL9v 1igakembiUtjzw3vO2YGd1BV1E3xpUmgRcmI4ZBuVfTIloWwg+YPxxq3KBJvXVhB6ckJ NwQdcUUSz103/i13JBYzbfK/olEel3TyL0kGQ2OOK3T+cbUYnh5jHDfcMQfSpqiqIH1V NbrpcCuoLu3CzpLYDCm3uvQcAn6IO+8qh30TwC1KdB09/SM0v3Ea0ETUb6sgHDJCuhWy 3ttm64RJ7SlL8c9zxD1BJT2kq4qcezjglottbchHDUvBTcsbwxyYMUsJyy2JGV8DGoqy ziVw== 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 Received: by 10.68.236.8 with SMTP id uq8mr31833152pbc.156.1353255257787; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:14:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: rafael@rafaelmartins.eng.br Received: by 10.68.52.98 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:14:17 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [177.44.9.142] In-Reply-To: <50A8E4BE.2060100@gentoo.org> References: <20121118032922.GA2335@kroah.com> <50A85DB8.9060608@gentoo.org> <20121118041919.GA2920@kroah.com> <50A86327.5060805@gentoo.org> <20121118043511.GA3184@kroah.com> <50A86B84.5080801@gentoo.org> <20121118051911.GA3857@kroah.com> <50A8739A.2030509@gentoo.org> <20121118064927.GA4620@kroah.com> <20121118075709.GB11047@kroah.com> <50A8E4BE.2060100@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:14:17 -0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: p-MJKEJORcUgyRs8O-XiE74eH8g Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012) From: Rafael Goncalves Martins To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkE1gKzRmKmCzMMobZRWZbHHQ4EkoEbmBkjNOMH7hrk58lPB4cI0HrMkKTFOxaahJK0ZIdx X-Archives-Salt: c20b5c30-62d4-4a03-a028-9c4f40868bcc X-Archives-Hash: 7a1c6d1865dde85e84ce7730d6fde148 On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote: > On 18.11.2012 08:57, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: >>> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd >>> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some >>> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why; >>> but I think that is not as important as one may think. The point is >>> that the desire is there, and thusly there are users who want to make >>> other systems (namely openrc) work. >>> >>> People like openrc. My VMs for instance, boot reasonably quickly. >>> Booting 5 seconds faster may be super duper, but not at the cost of an >>> existing reliable solution. >> >> So is this the goal? Great, someone say that then, that's all I'm >> asking for here. >> >>>> That's wonderful, seriously. But why is this suddenly an official >>>> Gentoo project? When did that happen, and why? Why not just do a >>>> "normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to >>>> the distro like all other packages are added. >>>> >>>> My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by >>>> Gentoo, the distro / foundation. And that happened in private, without >>>> any anouncement. Which is not good on many levels. >>> >>> I'm unsure on what grounds you disapprove. People start (and abandon) >>> projects often in Gentoo. Suddenly you dislike one such project and >>> object to this practice? Certainly if we had to get some sort of >>> Foundation consensus (for anything) nothing would happen. We can't >>> even get more than 40% of foundation members to vote. >> >> I object if this is seen as a "Gentoo blessed" fork of a community >> project that is worked on by all other major Linux distros. That is the >> type of decision that can be made by the Gentoo Council, which is fine, >> but it sure would be nice if it were publicly stated, instead of having >> to see it on the Gentoo github site instead. > > Hi, > I've seen this argument being repeated all over this thread and I'd like > to clarify: http://github.com/gentoo (nor it's bitbucket.org > counterpart) was never meant to host "Gentoo blessed" forks/projects and > it *doesn't*. > Sole purpose of it, was to encourage more contribution from users using > web goodies like "click a button to fork", since most of the people are > very comfortable with github's workflow. We (gentoo-science team) have > seen significant increase of interest since we've started using github. > Cheers, > Kacper Hi, Well, if yoiu fork a big community project, like udev, in a github account called gentoo, people *will* think it is a Gentoo project. If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't sponsored by Gentoo, but this udev-ng/eudev/whatever thing does the opposite and actually advertise the Gentoo sponsorship with the sentence "This is a Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently being done with openrc." in their README I don't think that someone can claim this sponsorship without a council vote. I disagree with this fork, and tend to agree with what Greg and Diego said before in this thread. BR, Rafael > P.s. Just to emphasise it even more: There's a pornview fork there too. > I don't recall Gentoo Council acknowledging it as default imageviewer. > We should definitely put it into agenda. You really want to compare pornview, that was dead and someone kindly resurrected, with udev, that is actively maintained and the quality of the fork is questionable? :( >> And if that is the decision of the council, I would expect the ability >> to have some type of discussion about it, wouldn't you? >> >> Also, the whole issue with the copyrights is very serious, for the >> reasons I've stated before. Don't mess with copyrights, developers, and >> companies, take them very serious, as they are the basis for our >> licenses. >> >> thanks, >> >> greg k-h >> > > > -- Rafael Goncalves Martins Gentoo Linux developer http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/