Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Wijsman schrieb:
>> And if any other developer disagrees, he is welcome to make his own
>> xorg-server package that includes this patch.
>
> s/disagrees/doesn't care about our users/
>
> s/own/yet another/
>
> s/includes/introduces an additional step/

How about you make your points in whole sentences? That is easier to reply to.

>> This is not a problem for the X11 team, but one for the users that we
>> care about, namely the ones who use the free/open source drivers.
>> They would not see latest package versions in stable with latest
>> features and bugfixes, until the proprietary drivers are compatible
>> with them.
>
> I still don't see the problem, we have USE flag masking for this.

USE flag masking is totally not related to this.

>> I don't hate that group of users, I just don't care about them. I do
>> not do anything to deliberately sabotage their choice to use blobs,
>> but I to put it in the words of a well-known kernel developer[2]: I
>> refuse to tie my hands behind my back for them. If they use blobs, it
>> is their problem.
>
> Yet, you don't have to do anything for them; so, why would you bother?

I do things for them that I don't have to (like the occasional proxy commit
for ati-drivers). But when it comes to free/open source x11 packages I
indeed don't bother.

>> I don't ignore this. It describes Gentoo as tools which work for the
>> goals of the user. So create the tools that are fine for your users.
>> I will create those that are fine for mine, and they all can be part
>> of Gentoo. The about or philosophy pages do not put an upper limit on
>> the number of tools that can be in Gentoo.
>
> Since when is this conversation about the amount of tools?
>
> Don't pull things out of context.

My argument that a "no mandatory caring about other users" policy does not
hinder the mission of Gentoo in any way. You said it increases hardness and
inconsistency. I said that this is not necessarily the case when there is
proper documentation, and besides not contrary to any goal stated in the
about or philosophy pages.

>>>> Interference does happen, I did not claim otherwise.
>>>
>>> You claimed it to be kept minimum; that's either silence or
>>> ignorance.
>>
>> I said it needs to be kept to the *necessary* minimum. That is for
>> example QA rules like observing visibility requirements, no
>> substantial changes to stable packages, technical implementation of
>> legal rules like RESTRICT for packages with problematic license, and
>> so on.
>
> And those rules are irrelevant to this conversation, why recall them?

Because you too said something about minimum, I wanted to ensure that we
talk about the same minimum.

>> yngwin is not alone in rejecting non-upstreamed systemd units in his
>> packages, there are many users who don't want them either (whether
>> that is a rational decision or not) and for whom this change is
>> unwelcome. So these are the users that he cares about.
>
> We've been to that argument already, it was found to be non-sense...

Nonsense or not, it is users who have that desire (however irrational that
may be) and either you care about them or not.

> Think about it, the size of the unit files installed take less space
> than the presence of the word systemd in the Portage tree does.

That has nothing to do with the current argument.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SeaMonkey - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlG/NjEACgkQ+gvH2voEPRBxfQCfVhxb89YrPyF82qj1i7JkV+J+
kO8An2iC1o1+EbxodPKQMDflwScq1scX
=/rNX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----