From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I0DNi-0003yb-83 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:18:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5I9Hesb030285; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:40 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5I9FfLg027994 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:15:43 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8BF65068 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:15:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.209 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.209] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RobgQ5L8XIE9 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3730264A68 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I0DGs-0008WL-Qn for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:11:38 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-66-205.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.66.205]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:11:38 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-66-205.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:11:38 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <46701D06.5080302@gentoo.org> <20070617140632.GB7280@localhost.localdomain> <46758047.3050608@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-66-205.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.131 (Ghosts: First Variation) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 9b94fba7-0872-49d5-973e-d090748c058d X-Archives-Hash: c62e8f7c28deea11f0529a7981606d88 Steve Long posted f540sd$m5a$2@sea.gmane.org, excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:08:13 +0100: > Josh Saddler wrote: >> As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient >> reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the >> rest of the thread. > > No but fascist license conditions are; you should have read the ion3 > discussion. Personal feelings about fascist licenses aside (sig says it well enough), it seems to me the resolution is pretty much settled, so there's little more to discuss. 1) Given the current situation, permanent unstable would seem the best possible Gentoo could do. How could one sanely argue for stable? 2) Someone mentioned actually, you know, /asking/ them! We'll never know if they'll change until we do. 3) Beyond that, it would seem to be up to the package maintainer. If he wishes to ask, and gets a positive response, great. If not, well, is it worth it to him to continue dealing with it in the tree as permanently unstable? There doesn't seem to be any huge Gentoo policy conflict in it remaining in the tree as long as there's a maintainer wishing to do the dirty work on it, as long as /is/ clearly permanently unstable. If upstream won't work with us, well, I guess users have yet another use for package.keywords, if they wish to continue using it. The Gentoo policy should be clear enough (and can be made clearer with appropriate ewarn or the like messages, if necessary). 4) Another alternative would be to remove it from the tree, but maintain it in the official VoIP overlay. Again, if they maintainer wishes, I don't see a policy preventing that, either. 5) Again, beyond the permanent unstable if it /does/ remain in the tree, it's primarily up to the maintainer. Thus, if they don't wish to handle it, they can drop it, and if no one else does either, well, it'll be out of the tree /and/ official overlay. Someone could then put in in an unofficial overlay, or possibly it could go in Sunrise or other supervised user contributed overlay.* So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer. Why are the rest of us still discussing it? ___ * Did the discussion on a sunset overlay or the equivalent ever go anywhere, or did that get merged into sunrise, or... ? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list