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

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Tom Wijsman schrieb:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:44:50 +0430
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote:
>
>> Tom Wijsman schrieb:
>>
>>> Oh, and not to forget about X-openrc, X-cron, X-..., ... and so on.
>>
>> X-selinux if you want an example of what is currently in tree.
>
> That's not the point, the point is that different approaches are used;
> this leads to inconsistency that makes things harder for our users.

So what? If one approach is better, then over time it will win over the
others. If there is not one single best approach, then users will have
to live with the diversity (or inconsistency as you call it).

>
>
>>> Putting the maintenance burden on users is the worst thing we can
>>> do.
>>
>> Users have no extra maintenance burden in this case.
>
> They do, because of the inconsistency they can't take a single action.
>
>> Users have to make informed decisions, which is something they have
>> to do all the time anyway when using Gentoo.
>
> Irrelevant to the maintenance burden, it is not about not making
> informed decisions but rather about not making them harder to apply.

"Follow this HOWTO/guide" is not hard.


>> IIRC, QA needs no formal justification for masking a package.
>
> They do, otherwise they can't pursue their goal; if they don't define
> quality and can't justify themselves, then what exactly do they assure?

Usually QA does justify their actions, but I found nowhere a rule that
this is a requirement.

>> You are free to pursue what you think is best for any particular group
>> of users that you care about. Just don't expect anybody else to share
>> that ambition.
>
> They don't have to, because there is no reason for them to be bothered;
> at least not in the sense of caring for any group of users.

Indeed.

>> x11 team decided some time ago that we would not let proprietary
>> drivers hinder the progress of X.org packages.
>
> This is irrelevant, since optional files do not hinder progress.

This is very relevant. Imagine if one day a user comes and wants us to
include a very small, almost zero-maintenance, upstream-rejected patch
for xorg-server that makes it easier to run proprietary drivers on
Gentoo. Oh wait, someone already did[1].

And if any other developer disagrees, he is welcome to make his own
xorg-server package that includes this patch.

>> Would it be better for our users if we instead bent over to
>> accommodate for the binary blobs from AMD, Intel (yes, Intel) and
>> NVidia?
>
> Yes, I don't see how this is a problem for the X11 team.

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.
>> However for all *I* care, blob users can go use Windows.
>
> They don't have to, and using Gentoo as a means to bother users one
> hates isn't really the right approach to go about it; that's careless.

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.

>> Other developers care more, and put a lot of effort into making the
>> blobs palatable on Gentoo.
>
> Glad they do.

Yes, that is very cool.

>> You mean that page? http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
>> I don't see the words "direction" or "stream", nor anything similar
>> mentioned there.
>
> Why do the exact words have to be there. It being an about and
> therefore it is sufficient to give a description of Gentoo.
>
> "automatically ... for just about any ... need", I don't see how
> "maintenance burden" is "automatically" and how "all *I* care" is
> "any ... need"; that would be disrespectful to what Gentoo is.
>
> In fact, if you want more exact words; a better read is
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml
>
> which has "goal" & "philosophy", uses the word "should" several times,
> "strive", "mission" and more. Are you going to ignore this as well?

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.

>>>> Gentoo is a collection of individuals which each work on a small
>>>> part of it, and the interference in that is kept to the necessary
>>>> minimum, mostly by Council enacted rules. I would be very unhappy
>>>> if that were to change.
>>>
>>> You can't avoid interference, it is bound to happen sooner or later;
>>> when it does, Council shouldn't be implied, but rather be the
>>> exception.
>>>
>>> I would be very unhappy if Gentoo only ran on rules and silence;
>>> these not only affect our developers, but even more also our users.
>>
>> 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.

>> If you disagree with another developer, you of course are entitled
>> to complain loudly and try to convince him of your way.
>
> This in not about developers agreeing, it is about our users agreeing.
>
> Oh, and that philosophy link above, it has "user" all over the place...

Users are diverse and they don't agree on many things either. 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.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462656
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/1999/2/8/13