| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Tom Wijsman schrieb: |
| 5 |
>>>> And if any other developer disagrees, he is welcome to make his |
| 6 |
>>>> own xorg-server package that includes this patch. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> s/disagrees/doesn't care about our users/ |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> s/own/yet another/ |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> s/includes/introduces an additional step/ |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> How about you make your points in whole sentences? That is easier to |
| 15 |
>> reply to. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> You can easily integrate it, I don't like forking for no good reason. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Do you have a reply instead of this ad hominem response? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
After I apply your sed commands the sentence will read: |
| 22 |
"And if any other developer doesn't care about our users, he is welcome to |
| 23 |
make his yet another xorg-server package that introduces an additional step |
| 24 |
this patch." |
| 25 |
Please forgive me if I had trouble parsing this immediately. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The point is that x11 team has a long standing policy against |
| 28 |
non-upstreamed patches. Even stronger for patches that upstream explicitly |
| 29 |
rejected. I do think that qualifies as a good reason to reject patches like |
| 30 |
the one from bug 462656. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Even so, if you can convince a team member that such a patch is still worth |
| 33 |
maintaining then we may include it. But for patches that are only useful in |
| 34 |
combination with proprietary drivers, the chances are slim. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
>> USE flag masking is totally not related to this. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> If the solution is not related, your example problem is not related. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> But let me assume you have asked "How is USE flag masking related?" |
| 41 |
> instead; well, if a proprietary driver is not yet compatible with a |
| 42 |
> package then its VIDEO_CARDS expanded USE flag can be masked such that |
| 43 |
> an older version will be considered by Portage. Works perfectly. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
No, this just causes the flag to be disabled on upgrade, which makes the |
| 46 |
driver package fall out of xorg-drivers dependencies and removed by next |
| 47 |
- --depclean run. Unless I misunderstand you again, but xorg-drivers is the |
| 48 |
only relevant package that has USE_EXPAND flags related to the proprietary |
| 49 |
drivers. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> I don't see a group of users that hate unit files, please show me... |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Saying that anybody here "hates" unit files would be a strawman argument. |
| 54 |
There are users who don't want them on their system, and they said so on |
| 55 |
this mailing list. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
>>> Think about it, the size of the unit files installed take less space |
| 58 |
>>> than the presence of the word systemd in the Portage tree does. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
>> That has nothing to do with the current argument. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> This has a lot to do with the subject. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
The reason *why* the aforementioned users don't want the systemd unit files |
| 65 |
is mostly irrelevant. They don't want unit files and could not be convinced |
| 66 |
otherwise. So if you care about them you help making it easy to achieve |
| 67 |
what they want. Or even the default. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
- From the philosophy page: "the tool is designed to reflect and transmit the |
| 70 |
will of the user" so no restriction to a well-reasoned will. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Best regards, |
| 74 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 75 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 76 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 77 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with SeaMonkey - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlG/UtoACgkQ+gvH2voEPRAsCQCfeMvFDgXCOxvinBjlMUcYJDjU |
| 80 |
WMAAnilk5vrwlyc+0aNSE8lW4nTTtsTN |
| 81 |
=gwtG |
| 82 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives