| 1 |
Rich Freeman schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you. |
| 3 |
>> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo |
| 4 |
>> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo. |
| 5 |
>> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then |
| 6 |
>> write to ml about it.' |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop |
| 9 |
> maintaining anything that installs a daemon. As a developer you have |
| 10 |
> NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those |
| 11 |
> devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're |
| 12 |
> willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a |
| 13 |
> unit. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and |
| 16 |
upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for |
| 17 |
selinux policies. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> The very nature of Gentoo leads to situations where you'll get |
| 20 |
> requests from other devs to add support for crazy stuff to your |
| 21 |
> packages (X32, prefix, init systems, etc). As long as somebody else |
| 22 |
> is willing to do the work to maintain it (as a developer or proxy) and |
| 23 |
> it doesn't hurt conventional users, we should cooperate. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
With x32, I generally refused to apply the patches to x11 maintained packages |
| 26 |
before they had upstream ack first. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives