1 |
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 |
2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I am splitting this to a separate thread, because it could become a |
5 |
> long thread pretty easily. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:14:00AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
8 |
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Samuli Suominen |
9 |
> > <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
> > > I've been considering packaging systemd in sys-fs/udev with |
11 |
> > > USE="systemd" and use of 'if' and 'else' plus creating |
12 |
> > > virtual/systemd for proper / installation and some other minor, |
13 |
> > > but bad design choices done in the systemd packaging |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > What is the consensus of the systemd team regarding those choices? |
16 |
> > Would it make more sense to just fix the packaging rather than |
17 |
> > forking it? I'm not sure what all the issues are, or how |
18 |
> > widespread the disagreement is. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I am a member of the systemd team, and I know what needs to be done. I |
21 |
> have offered patches multiple times the last few months to fix the |
22 |
> packaging, only to have them refused, |
23 |
|
24 |
Why were they refused? |
25 |
|
26 |
> even though I have presented, |
27 |
> multiple times, strong recommendations from systemd upstream that I am |
28 |
> correct, as well as making it clear that I would take responsibility |
29 |
> for breakages the change would cause. Originally, we did install |
30 |
> systemd correctly, but that was changed some time back, |
31 |
|
32 |
Why was it changed? |
33 |
|
34 |
> before I |
35 |
> joined the team. All Samuli and I have asked is that the change we |
36 |
> made that puts everything in /usr be undone. |
37 |
|
38 |
Why is the change refused to be undone? |
39 |
|
40 |
> Besides the udev team, |
41 |
> this would have benefits for the gnome team. |
42 |
|
43 |
Why would it benefit them? |
44 |
|
45 |
> You may ask why I have offered patches instead of just fixing the |
46 |
> ebuild since I am a team member. That is because even team members |
47 |
> aren't allowed to touch bugs assigned to systemd@g.o [1], |
48 |
|
49 |
Well, if there are conflicts within a team then I can agree that no |
50 |
member is allowed to touch the bug without a collaborative decision; |
51 |
but from what it appears this bug has been handed in a way that one |
52 |
member appears to take all decisions and the other member has nothing |
53 |
to say. In particular, comments 5 and 11 change the state of the bug |
54 |
without giving any reasoning about why that change in state was made; |
55 |
this is unacceptable, it gives us no reason to believe the state change. |
56 |
|
57 |
For what reason did these specific state changes happen to this bug? |
58 |
|
59 |
> my personal efforts to advocate for this specific change got me this |
60 |
> comment as well [2]. This bug, and others like it, would never have |
61 |
> come up if we were installing systemd the way upstream recommends. |
62 |
|
63 |
Why was the / -> /usr change so necessary that it causes bugs like this? |
64 |
|
65 |
> I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest |
66 |
> of my evidence, |
67 |
|
68 |
We do not only want to see evidence, but also the reasoning behind it; |
69 |
from both sides, because otherwise there is nothing to discuss here. |
70 |
|
71 |
> but What it boils down to is this. As a member of the |
72 |
> systemd team, I have questioned the way we are doing things, multiple |
73 |
> times. I feel that we aren't doing things in the best interest of the |
74 |
> distro as a whole. However, consensus doesn't matter on that team; the |
75 |
> members are expected to do exactly as they are told. |
76 |
|
77 |
It begs for evidence, explanation and change. |
78 |
|
79 |
> William |
80 |
> |
81 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472792#C11 |
82 |
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/478538#C11 |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
With kind regards, |
86 |
|
87 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
88 |
Gentoo Developer |
89 |
|
90 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
91 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
92 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |