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 E31EC1381F3 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:32:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34FFFE08D9; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gerard.telenet-ops.be (gerard.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.48]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5954DE07FD for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:32:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by gerard.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id oEXz1l00M2khLEN0HEXzMF; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:31:59 +0200 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:29:23 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: yngwin@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units Message-ID: <20130614162923.2ca7d4ae@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: References: <1371039602.27198.24.camel@localhost> <20130612162535.570c2bc0@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.18; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/Z/ogBnpYYkjApN9erS9tkQE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4358f085-555d-4547-ac02-2bf56bbae2be X-Archives-Hash: 602fa7886c24dedbcdeecebf86024ecd --Sig_/Z/ogBnpYYkjApN9erS9tkQE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:09:08 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > > What part of this is bullying? >=20 > The part where someone takes over the package and forces a change that > is objected to by the current maintainer, and you expect him to just > let this happen. And why exactly is this bullying? s/objected to by the current maintainer/usable by a share of our users/ =20 > > Adding a unit file isn't going to cause you harm, >=20 > In my opinion such a feature request should be sent upstream. It's not > like systemd is obscure. You don't really point out why it is going to cause you harm; your opinion actually sounds like doing the opposite to you, for what good? In your case it was sent upstream, this is irrelevant; there's nothing that keeps us from applying it directly instead of waiting for upstream. I don't see how endless waiting on upstream makes anybody happy but you. > > and if > > you feel otherwise you can always ask the Council for a ruling. >=20 > I'm pretty sure they will vote in favour of those who seem to have the > strongest voice. You can't really tell if you don't ask it. I hope they vote with users in mind, this strongest voice game is silly. > > Maintainers MAINTAIN packages, they don't own them. They're > > expected to cooperate with other projects, and if they're going to > > point at the rules to justify blocking work others are doing they > > shouldn't be surprised if others find rules to point at as well. >=20 > Cooperation doesn't include hostile take-over. But it does include cooperation with other projects; but not only them, our users as well. If not, whom else would you be maintaining for? Your case wasn't exactly hostile; on the other hand, denying units that benefit a share of our users can also be seen as hostile. Granted, in theory we could stuff a lot more packages into the tree because some maintainers don't want to help out our users; though it is an intermediate resolution, it is in the end not going to help anybody but making the tree more confusing and inconsistent. That's not good. > And as I said, in my opinion feature requests belong upstream. Making a package work for a share of users isn't a feature request. > If what you're proposing is going to be standard practice in Gentoo, > then I will be looking for a friendlier environment to spend my time > on. Sometimes there has to be a hurricane in a glass of water to make Gentoo more friendly towards our users. A statement like you just gave exactly shows your objection to being friendly towards our users; because really, what exactly are you pursuing by rejecting such files? --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/Z/ogBnpYYkjApN9erS9tkQE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuyjHAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9JhsH/1nb1pUYTHP6Qu1oD/jqBZx/ NU3qQJsnOCuADHlGbLpN7/yN8X/vq39V7uffg9dahCiulElH0XKwFgcd7MKeGkGj yBlKssfzUam2imOyCRuXT4GpvqygDVkcbIbaYJYU3ht+vuj85HPqBopOHMK8rxye EJmQJNc9vCY+/U8SFqiLNepeYI9mln9FHm8ck+XNihbw1rpgyoVMUqQkYNnC6oKk PuagcgJZMzdv8Of66GPp9NVdWm4T/j4/MFJ1+HobYJaRgE2QhJQQcHM6HZgdGQcu 4qIsdt7pMas2yrjGDQBzSm8+Yx3pqDK9o6qhuscflcCrAV7iIvniNMXbL7U47oI= =etvq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Z/ogBnpYYkjApN9erS9tkQE--