| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> We already have patches to fix things thanks to Polynomial-C aka. Lars |
| 3 |
> Wendler. See: |
| 4 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~polynomial-c/udev/ |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Now we only need to motivate our maintainers to use the openrc useflag |
| 7 |
> to fix udev properly. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Hmm, only a 53K patch. Why not just fork the thing? Heaven forbid |
| 10 |
maybe that might actually get everybody to agree on virtualizing it |
| 11 |
which would seem to make everybody happy anyway. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And I'm not all that keen on having so many changes controlled by a |
| 14 |
use flag, unless it were part of some kind of agreed-upon transition |
| 15 |
plan like with KDE back in the move to /usr. It is like having two |
| 16 |
different packages in one anyway. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Keep in mind that motivation in a volunteer-based project generally |
| 19 |
does not include hitting somebody over the head until they quit. It |
| 20 |
is also generally the case that package maintainers tend to be aligned |
| 21 |
with upstream, since if they didn't have a strong interest in the |
| 22 |
package they probably wouldn't be maintaining it in the first place. |
| 23 |
If somebody submitted a 53K patch to just about any other team in |
| 24 |
Gentoo they'd be told to take it upstream. Heck, Gentoo paid for a |
| 25 |
patch to git and we didn't even apply our own patch until upstream |
| 26 |
refined and merged it (though we did backport it - and I think all of |
| 27 |
this is exactly how it should have been done). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives