From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-2501-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A131381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:52:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43EC3E095A;
Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:52:07 +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 62BB1E095A
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:52:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so3721656vbg.30
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=b0MneTATaTJDS0YOQSFR2z8jhrNuVTLAsfg1Nqpo6Fc=;
b=eaPrCHpCRuXzIVfWeZhS6PVV+USl8Ui7MS0f2/Zkkk/0gFqBtUPGrc2TuB5HOZL43c
XZU4pNAy5LxatTNYnTzeSvVJ5IUDryT1m1io7JoC5o2VUrgXFJ74S3nCKlcC/tc/GGRz
ZC1l3xgA07BakNDB52H155C5v9imtAUwuRmZohpIvQ4PNmbhzKU6t8oiHrT9DJtcmzQa
P0Pggf/LqP1WzMQOqE5UOSIlaScf4T/lv5faoYXq2qV8WZOZzsoJPhps5pVmrcHInSgY
3+mPjdIIhxTFxsp+Q8Y63ZQGZa/xhq2VFvzDlbZI7ujMM+ncu+ux5kT2OnOHzXvfMax3
3+wA==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.97.238 with SMTP id ed14mr5693993veb.34.1371048725359;
Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.73.3 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130612162535.570c2bc0@gentoo.org>
References: <CAGfcS_mLUy+YPG+Fkgbm4w_4h7iWgD=i6KEG-c158MBfX+xJdA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+NrkpfMdfokw4AQ7-AvoHRXeUPDS8OYV8e_=2ioqyibuy1Prg@mail.gmail.com>
<1371039602.27198.24.camel@localhost>
<CAGfcS_mtQcfuBT_-Hww5m=eZKrTULqcDT1a47pnkbv=XtqVsBw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAO-1Pb5A6FfLpN9bZPTwt2dPxuJUh1=RsO9CLdikMDMhciF9yg@mail.gmail.com>
<20130612162535.570c2bc0@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:52:05 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cV212Mnnx3pY3MiSYPJD-VZRUCQ
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_nR4jTawX0eU5TqCwOVPfQ+zJW-=2Mg9=6A0KmmnHy+ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 05be744c-b5a2-4bdc-ab6b-e96b2aafb787
X-Archives-Hash: c831b5be20d58a5fea15c4df6944f663
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org=
> wrote:
> Now, why does every package supposedly need systemd@ as co-maintainer?
> I don't think it's usually hard to see that a particular bug report is
> relevant to systemd and reassign/CC. Even bug wranglers can CC systemd
> if anything related to systemd is involved.
I agree that it shouldn't be necessary. However, absent some policy
change, it might be necessary in the case of maintainers hostile to
systemd. Otherwise the maintainer will just revert the change and
hide behind the standing policy that maintainers basically have the
final say. That really isn't the intent of the current policy, but
that is basically what it boils down to.
What all of this really amounts to is a bunch of people who don't want
to work together trying to legally apply the rules to accomplish their
personal goals, whatever they may be.
Honestly, if the Council just said "we don't want to make this a
policy, but if systemd maintainers are willing to handle the bugs
package maintainers should let them add units because that is the
spirit of the existing policy" I'd be a lot happier.
Rich