Re: OT: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] profiles: drop USE=cracklib from base/make.defaults.

[R0b0t1]

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Nils Freydank <holgersson@××××××.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 27. Dezember 2017, 22:33:03 CET schrieb R0b0t1:
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
>> > As he said, he contactedd the maintainers in ample time, so I would say
>> > that since they didn't respond he went ahead in good faith. I'll get the
>> > link later, but as I recall, the dev manual recommends a 2-4 week wait
>> > for maintainers not responding then we can assume that what we are doing
>> > is ok.
>>
>> This assumes there is some pressing need for the change to take place,
>> which I am not sure there is. I can understand wanting to make the
>> change for consistency's sake, but the feature is important enough
>> that I think a suitable replacement should explicitly be found before
>> continuing. E.g. affirmative feedback from all affected packages.
>
> Often a fix timeline is the only way to achieve any responses - or at least
> get stuff done, even if the matter itself is not urgent at all. In this
> specific case the points Michael had were quite clear, and the timespan of
> two month was long enough to react somehow (at least in the context of typical
> periods in Gentoo, e.g. last rite/removal period of 30 days).
>

Yes, but as per past comments it seems some people think the action
taken was slightly inappropriate. It feels like you didn't read what I
said: in some cases, a fix timeline may not be appropriate. I don't
know when that is.

> On topic: There are some users including myself that find cracklib mostly
> annoying. I use strong passwords (or ssh keys only) where I can, and cracklib
> annoys me with the request to set "secure passwords" for a container
> playground, where I want root:test as login credentials.
> Beside that the point that profiles in general should contain as least USE as
> possible (see the bug report for that).
>

I must be confused, because this is the only part of your message that
is offtopic.

>> Enforcement of rules or Gentoo development guidelines does not happen
>> consistently, and the times when rules are enforced "for consistency's
>> sake" seem completely arbitrary. There seems to be no extant problems
>> caused by the flag as set, so why focus on this specifically?
>
> To me these times look as they're based upon agreement between the involved
> parties, and in itself consistently, e.g. at least 30 days masking before
> removal out of the tree, or in this case at least two to four weeks to let
> others respond.
>

But why male models^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfocus on this issue in
particular? If I understand the situation, nothing is actually
*broken.* That is why I was questioning consistency.

>> There is a lot of discussion of not burdening developers with
>> pointless talk or changes. If that is a goal, then why is this posting
>> receiving so many replies?
>
> With all due respect, your posting didn't bring any new relevant aspects into
> this thread on this mailing list with the explicit focus and topic of Gentoo
> development, and might be exactly part of the "pointless talk" you mention.
>
> My one isn't better; I just want to point that out to you, because you tend to
> write messages with this kind of meta questions about the cause of things.
>
> If you want to discuss this, I'd prefer another place than this list.
>

As someone watching from the outside I see this type of discussion
crop up from time to time. All I am suggesting is thinking about
actions before they are acted out. This isn't to say what was
undertaken was not thought out - but the patterns of behavior I see
that that decision exists within are what I am suggesting needs more
careful consideration.

If you can not see the utility in thinking about thinking, I am not
sure we would have much to talk about.

Respectfully,
     R0b0t1