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 6CDB61381F3 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA9AFE09AF; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24CE6E09A2 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (g227002027.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.227.2.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AD0333E580 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:15:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51BF3631.5040101@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:15:45 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units References: <20130612162535.570c2bc0@gentoo.org> <51BB2DDF.9010203@gentoo.org> <51BB3D0E.6010405@gentoo.org> <51BB7D1B.6060506@gentoo.org> <20130614233115.01ef2c84@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <51BB95DA.5030403@gentoo.org> <20130615010954.781b8f34@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <51BC3483.4010304@gentoo.org> <20130615123120.3436e52c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20130615123120.3436e52c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 035017ac-9e6c-4b7e-bc07-e0c2c5e11d0c X-Archives-Hash: 17a7db1e7a681990552a091dfd1842d8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tom Wijsman schrieb: >> And if any other developer disagrees, he is welcome to make his own >> xorg-server package that includes this patch. > > s/disagrees/doesn't care about our users/ > > s/own/yet another/ > > s/includes/introduces an additional step/ How about you make your points in whole sentences? That is easier to reply to. >> This is not a problem for the X11 team, but one for the users that we >> care about, namely the ones who use the free/open source drivers. >> They would not see latest package versions in stable with latest >> features and bugfixes, until the proprietary drivers are compatible >> with them. > > I still don't see the problem, we have USE flag masking for this. USE flag masking is totally not related to this. >> I don't hate that group of users, I just don't care about them. I do >> not do anything to deliberately sabotage their choice to use blobs, >> but I to put it in the words of a well-known kernel developer[2]: I >> refuse to tie my hands behind my back for them. If they use blobs, it >> is their problem. > > Yet, you don't have to do anything for them; so, why would you bother? I do things for them that I don't have to (like the occasional proxy commit for ati-drivers). But when it comes to free/open source x11 packages I indeed don't bother. >> I don't ignore this. It describes Gentoo as tools which work for the >> goals of the user. So create the tools that are fine for your users. >> I will create those that are fine for mine, and they all can be part >> of Gentoo. The about or philosophy pages do not put an upper limit on >> the number of tools that can be in Gentoo. > > Since when is this conversation about the amount of tools? > > Don't pull things out of context. My argument that a "no mandatory caring about other users" policy does not hinder the mission of Gentoo in any way. You said it increases hardness and inconsistency. I said that this is not necessarily the case when there is proper documentation, and besides not contrary to any goal stated in the about or philosophy pages. >>>> Interference does happen, I did not claim otherwise. >>> >>> You claimed it to be kept minimum; that's either silence or >>> ignorance. >> >> I said it needs to be kept to the *necessary* minimum. That is for >> example QA rules like observing visibility requirements, no >> substantial changes to stable packages, technical implementation of >> legal rules like RESTRICT for packages with problematic license, and >> so on. > > And those rules are irrelevant to this conversation, why recall them? Because you too said something about minimum, I wanted to ensure that we talk about the same minimum. >> yngwin is not alone in rejecting non-upstreamed systemd units in his >> packages, there are many users who don't want them either (whether >> that is a rational decision or not) and for whom this change is >> unwelcome. So these are the users that he cares about. > > We've been to that argument already, it was found to be non-sense... Nonsense or not, it is users who have that desire (however irrational that may be) and either you care about them or not. > Think about it, the size of the unit files installed take less space > than the presence of the word systemd in the Portage tree does. That has nothing to do with the current argument. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SeaMonkey - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlG/NjEACgkQ+gvH2voEPRBxfQCfVhxb89YrPyF82qj1i7JkV+J+ kO8An2iC1o1+EbxodPKQMDflwScq1scX =/rNX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----