| 1 |
On 4/20/20 5:25 PM, Patrick McLean wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Please explain how we are actively making things worse for you? We |
| 4 |
> are contributing useful packages to the tree, we are doing the work |
| 5 |
> and we are doing it in the way that makes the most effective use of |
| 6 |
> our time. We simply do not have time to be trying to convince |
| 7 |
> upstreams to make changes to their build systems to support a single, |
| 8 |
> somewhat niche, distribution. We certainly don't have time to be |
| 9 |
> patching build systems with every version bump. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You're introducing unfixable security vulnerabilities into a |
| 13 |
distribution that I recommend to people, that my name implicitly |
| 14 |
endorses, and that I use to professionally to handle peoples' sensitive |
| 15 |
personal data. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Likewise with the license issues that can't be fixed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It's a waste of time having to explain to every new contributor that Go |
| 20 |
ebuilds in ::gentoo are "special" and aren't something they should be |
| 21 |
using as an example. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You're setting an example that our QA and security standards (that we |
| 24 |
beat to death in the quizzes) can be ignored whenever you feel like it. |
| 25 |
This indirectly creates technical debt as other developers follow your |
| 26 |
example. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
You're directly creating technical debt that someone else is going to |
| 29 |
have to clean up when you move on to the next shiny and the treecleaners |
| 30 |
have to waste six months last-riting everything. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
And you're blocking a golang implementation that doesn't have these |
| 33 |
problems. |
Archives