| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Jeff Horelick <jdhore@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think this issue is currently in far too murky of a state to get any |
| 3 |
> well-informed issue from the council. Perhaps when the issues get |
| 4 |
> hammered out a bit more, but not currently. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I tend to agree. Taking a position for or against some piece of |
| 7 |
technology doesn't really make sense. Making a decision on some |
| 8 |
implementation detail that has a real impact on the distro makes |
| 9 |
sense. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It is hard to anticipate what kinds of crises will continue to arise. |
| 12 |
So, best to deal with them one at a time. Of course, it would be best |
| 13 |
if the various package maintainers could talk to each other to |
| 14 |
anticipate issues BEFORE they arise. If upstream wants to rename or |
| 15 |
move half their binaries and the maintainers want to follow upstream, |
| 16 |
I don't have a big problem with that per se, but at least talk about |
| 17 |
it on the lists before unmasking things/etc. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Best to keep the council decisions actionable. And it is probably |
| 20 |
best to let the directly impacted maintainers be the ones to appeal to |
| 21 |
the council if the concern is breakage/etc. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If we were less of an enthusiast/choice distro then the obviously |
| 24 |
solution would be to just ship a working udev and wait and see how the |
| 25 |
whole mess works itself out elsewhere. It will be messy for a while |
| 26 |
for Gentoo, because we generally strive to be "interesting." :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives