| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Note however that I consider the scenario that you describe somewhat |
| 4 |
> unlikely, because I expect that any package fork will be done with the |
| 5 |
> intention of swaying as many users as possible to the new package. |
| 6 |
> Therefore, it will probably include most if not all functions of the |
| 7 |
> original package. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Agreed, but even then you start having nomenclature issues. Do we |
| 10 |
really want new users to have to figure out that apache is the package |
| 11 |
that nobody uses because a stubborn maintainer is sitting on the name, |
| 12 |
while apache-fixed is the one that actually works like most would |
| 13 |
expect it to? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Yes, cooperation is better. But the method how to achieve cooperation is |
| 16 |
> convincing through arguments, not forcing changes against the wishes of the |
| 17 |
> maintainer. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There we disagree. Maintaining a package is a privilege conditioned |
| 20 |
on using that power in alignment with our philosophies, not a right. |
| 21 |
I wouldn't force the maintainer to actively support any particular |
| 22 |
config, but I wouldn't allow them to actively interfere with the |
| 23 |
properly-supported work of any project. I'll leave it at that - many |
| 24 |
will agree, many will disagree. I'm going to be completely up-front |
| 25 |
about my beliefs here, and I'm eager to see how the majority view is |
| 26 |
reflected in votes in the hope that the community can pick one |
| 27 |
direction and start moving in it either way. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives