| 1 |
> On 14 Jan 2022, at 23:10, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
>> The current (proxied) maintainer is somewhat difficult to work with |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Why is Arfrever being treated so bad here? To me, it looks like |
| 7 |
> you're the one who is difficult to work with. :\ |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
floppym is not obligated to work with somebody if he finds it |
| 11 |
difficult. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Jakov Smolić wrote: |
| 15 |
>> From what I've investigated, other major distributions don't apply |
| 16 |
>> any similar patches which means that we are likely to stop carrying |
| 17 |
>> most (or even all) of the current patches. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> What kind of silly groupthink is this? I expect Gentoo to champion choice. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Adding in a huge heap of patches which exceed the tree limits, have |
| 22 |
no justification within them, and nobody else needs is a good reason |
| 23 |
to dump them. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If someone actually wants them, that's another matter. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Even if they are being kept, justification for them should be made |
| 28 |
so that others know why we're doing it, why it's worth rebasing them, |
| 29 |
why we're changing the default behaviour of SQLite, ... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
(This is all worth doing anyway, but Gentoo, if we're going to do |
| 32 |
tropes, also doesn't like to deviate from upstream without |
| 33 |
justification.) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Please don't bring out this cliched "choice" trope just because |
| 36 |
we're discussing something. Obviously if they're actually useful |
| 37 |
in an application, we can talk about keeping them. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 42 |
>> There is an open QA bug [1] regarding the large set of undocumented |
| 43 |
>> patches that are being applied in the stable ebuilds. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Arfrever is active in the bug you linked, has provided explanations |
| 46 |
> for the patches and prepared to restructure the patches so that they |
| 47 |
> can be gated by local USE flags, has made several different concrete |
| 48 |
> suggestions for possible implementations and requested feedback, but |
| 49 |
> has received no reply in the bug and instead there's now this |
| 50 |
> backstabbing discussion on this list. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
You've missed discussions on IRC and some of the bugs _have_ |
| 54 |
gone unanswered (in particular https://bugs.gentoo.org/825278 <https://bugs.gentoo.org/825278> |
| 55 |
which started this all off). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Also, we were waiting several months for new SQLite which |
| 58 |
blocked security bumps for e.g. seamonkey. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
He has also received replies on the bug. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> Really? |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
You've intervened in something where you don't know all the |
| 66 |
circumstances, including the history of the contributor, |
| 67 |
with an aggressive tone. Really? |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
sam |
Archives