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 BA8C41381F3 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E334E08E0; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com (mail-vb0-f43.google.com [209.85.212.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99D0EE08CA for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so3454248vbg.16 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:05:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=Jh2sQ6eLR3SjMhEJ2s7aX1fQJoANYCfNRkFZcAo1/Es=; b=beN9p50mnpYYhi+8nvrs8QG+0kr5wjbtwevtyE+btEFJVQKTzytDr7soeE1ItVH6QN TBbBAV/D02Lh26BgGHsTUwXVYs5roUWEpbyLBAioqYXaCtgwnJaoiyumK3r00KlBRQA5 2P+1OdIN5Qd0xpRH/K7p2S85i7eU3DhlVE0IvlD4Hgr3ESA5LmGnX0T+MwfsyaSemxv9 qmgJfTedh53hPXCqyCXN3qskAxHZM8WzvXL9APMQ+IfyEGCAacWpDgozuT58g2s7UpR8 CoA2n5GL9znCjxFurgGZyz4ObWqGy7HgBUAKYmWbJikOQzf8bejlambqGMYgt2guVeM0 dbQA== 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 X-Received: by 10.220.223.14 with SMTP id ii14mr9591917vcb.50.1371035155697; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.73.3 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:05:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: f9QAeP0eiyWubBm2aZKAKHyRbrI Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: ff10a9ed-ce30-49ef-9687-f679c2520cc7 X-Archives-Hash: bf34b749d6194afaa911ba8d915e1795 Alas, I couldn't attend the council meeting in-person, but it seems like council missed the point of my request RE commits against maintainer wishes (or maybe not - if so I'll happily shut up as far as persuading the council goes). That said, I expressed it as a general request in the hope to not have something systemd-specific, and it sounds like that is not desired. Picking just a single quote that I think gives the sense of the discussion: <11.06.2013 19:10> <@Betelgeuse> Still I don't think policies necessary need adjusting <11.06.2013 19:10> <@Betelgeuse> If you need something system wide with opposition then ask council on a case by case basis So, what we need system-wide with clearly stated opposition on -dev is permission to add unit files to individual packages when the package maintainer doesn't want this done. I'd ask that the council consider explicitly permitting this. If not you're just going to get an agenda item for specific exceptions for the 10 packages that the maintainer blocked adding units to that particular month. Either that or you'll see 10 new packages with co-maintainers where the two maintainers are in complete disagreement, or the one who actually cares about the package and not the unit file quits and the package stagnates as a result. Nobody needs council permission under the current policies to become a co-maintainer. I really see this as a case where lack of direction from above is just going to lead to a lot of fighting at the ground level. If the council isn't willing to make policy regarding adding units to packages, just where do they expect them to go? Rich