Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata/install-qa-check.d: add 60tmpfiles-path QA check

[Thomas Deutschmann]

On 2021-08-08 13:17, David Seifert wrote:
> So you've created a big commotion... because you didn't get the initial
> point? Honestly, this seems to be a recurring theme at this point.
> Someone suggests some improved check/some change, and nowadays you can
> bet 50 quid that Whissi will pop up and bikeshed it in some way.

No?

First of all, just because you disagree with something or believe a 
discussion is wrong and or not necessary and start to frame it as 
bikeshedding, it doesn't actually become bikeshedding. This is a very 
sad and transparent attempt to silence people through defamation.

The draft contains an error. It's saying that "/etc/tmpfiles.d" became 
deprecated which is not true. Because this would imply that it was 
previously acceptable for packages in Gentoo repository to install to 
that location which is not correct. If a packages in ::gentoo installed 
to /etc/tmpfiles.d before, this was already wrong.

And my point was and still is, that neither the commit message nor the 
eqawarn should use the wording "deprecated" because nothing has changed 
-- no location became deprecated.

And this will also address parts of antarus' previous mail: Because this 
QA check should be only about ::gentoo repository, this shouldn't affect 
any other repository. I.e. in your own overlay, you are free to do 
whatever you want and can't be forced to stick to Gentoo QA rules.


> It's become a real problem at this point. In fact, we have proxy
> maintainers publicly refusing to work on packages somehow involving you
> (I'll mention no names, but check the #-desktop backlog), because your
> personality boils down to three attributes nowadays:

I am not in that channel and never was. If you make such an allegation, 
include facts so that I can respond. If you look at my complete history 
at GitHub issues you will find that most people I worked with 
appreciated to work with me. Of course there are some bugs/PRs where I 
rejected a requested change but I am not sure what your point is. This 
is normal because not every PR is valid.


> 1. If I say the sky is blue, you'll say it's green. If I say it's green,
> you'll say it's blue. I've had at least 5 people tell me they see the
> exact same pattern in you (and no, mgorny is not part of that set,
> before you throw that point at me). You're the textbook contrarian of
> Gentoo ("Wutbürger") right now.
> 2. You'll tell people they are wrong, they aren't following protocols,
> they made a mistake, but you will never follow through with actually
> telling people what/why or how. By the time people ask you "why?",
> you've already disappeared. Given how frequently this happens in
> multiple channels, projects and at different time points, statistically,
> this can't be explained by coincidence any more. This happens
> practically on a daily basis, so you're not getting the benefit of the
> doubt any more.
> 3. You can't let go. The security elections disaster right now is the
> prime example (yes, it's public, just check the history of the Security
> Project). This captures you so well: it's all about **community** and
> stuff, until you lose, then you start invoking technicalities and
> procedural shenanigans to justify some ludicrous kind of "co-lead" crap.
> Frankly, it's embarrassing, and you're at the centre of it. Instead of
> accepting defeat (remember, community and democracy!), you just fudge
> the results.

Interesting. You don't even now my view on this but you already have an 
opinion and are saying that I am the culprit. I think this is called 
"prejudiced". I am pretty sure that as a ComRel member you will abstain 
from this case as you seem to be superior. I mean you are publicly 
attacking me for 10+ months, rejected any attempt from my side when I 
tried to speak with you to get things sorted and now you showed how 
biased your are...


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5