| 1 |
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:02:26 +0200 |
| 2 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Rich Freeman schrieb: |
| 5 |
> >> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you. |
| 6 |
> >> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo |
| 7 |
> >> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo. |
| 8 |
> >> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then |
| 9 |
> >> write to ml about it.' |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop |
| 12 |
> > maintaining anything that installs a daemon. As a developer you have |
| 13 |
> > NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those |
| 14 |
> > devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're |
| 15 |
> > willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a |
| 16 |
> > unit. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and |
| 19 |
> upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for |
| 20 |
> selinux policies. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If we are to introduce split packages, we should start where doing it |
| 23 |
where it actually *makes sense*, rather than doing that to work-around |
| 24 |
stubbornness of uncooperative developers. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives