| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 16:40 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I |
| 4 |
> > grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an |
| 5 |
> > 'unofficial overlay'. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until |
| 8 |
> its details have been hashed out. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
Just to take this to a humorous extreme - |
| 11 |
would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I mean, the sundown overlay I've started on my server has nothing to do |
| 14 |
with it (except that it has all the same files), and apart from |
| 15 |
accidentally having the same users there is no relation implied. |
| 16 |
Since it never was a Gentoo project and does explicitly say in big red |
| 17 |
blinking letters that it is only supporting ebuilds for Gentoo-like |
| 18 |
distributions you don't have any hook to get it disabled. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That would kill all those arguments while not changing any _facts_ about |
| 21 |
sunrise. That's what bugs me, you're lawyering around, disputing |
| 22 |
semantic border cases instead of doing anything I see as reasonable. You |
| 23 |
can't stop sunrise from existing on non-Gentoo hardware, you can't make |
| 24 |
the devs stop working on it, you could only pull it closer, let it run |
| 25 |
on Gentoo hardware and influence it. |
| 26 |
So you chose to not be able to influence it, but then complain when |
| 27 |
people do what they want to do in their spare time, only tangentially |
| 28 |
related to Gentoo. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my |
| 31 |
absence ... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Patrick |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives