| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Kacper Kowalik <xarthisius@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 18.11.2012 08:57, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd |
| 5 |
>>> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some |
| 6 |
>>> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why; |
| 7 |
>>> but I think that is not as important as one may think. The point is |
| 8 |
>>> that the desire is there, and thusly there are users who want to make |
| 9 |
>>> other systems (namely openrc) work. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> People like openrc. My VMs for instance, boot reasonably quickly. |
| 12 |
>>> Booting 5 seconds faster may be super duper, but not at the cost of an |
| 13 |
>>> existing reliable solution. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> So is this the goal? Great, someone say that then, that's all I'm |
| 16 |
>> asking for here. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>>>> That's wonderful, seriously. But why is this suddenly an official |
| 19 |
>>>> Gentoo project? When did that happen, and why? Why not just do a |
| 20 |
>>>> "normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to |
| 21 |
>>>> the distro like all other packages are added. |
| 22 |
>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>> My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by |
| 24 |
>>>> Gentoo, the distro / foundation. And that happened in private, without |
| 25 |
>>>> any anouncement. Which is not good on many levels. |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> I'm unsure on what grounds you disapprove. People start (and abandon) |
| 28 |
>>> projects often in Gentoo. Suddenly you dislike one such project and |
| 29 |
>>> object to this practice? Certainly if we had to get some sort of |
| 30 |
>>> Foundation consensus (for anything) nothing would happen. We can't |
| 31 |
>>> even get more than 40% of foundation members to vote. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> I object if this is seen as a "Gentoo blessed" fork of a community |
| 34 |
>> project that is worked on by all other major Linux distros. That is the |
| 35 |
>> type of decision that can be made by the Gentoo Council, which is fine, |
| 36 |
>> but it sure would be nice if it were publicly stated, instead of having |
| 37 |
>> to see it on the Gentoo github site instead. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Hi, |
| 40 |
> I've seen this argument being repeated all over this thread and I'd like |
| 41 |
> to clarify: http://github.com/gentoo (nor it's bitbucket.org |
| 42 |
> counterpart) was never meant to host "Gentoo blessed" forks/projects and |
| 43 |
> it *doesn't*. |
| 44 |
> Sole purpose of it, was to encourage more contribution from users using |
| 45 |
> web goodies like "click a button to fork", since most of the people are |
| 46 |
> very comfortable with github's workflow. We (gentoo-science team) have |
| 47 |
> seen significant increase of interest since we've started using github. |
| 48 |
> Cheers, |
| 49 |
> Kacper |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Hi, |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Well, if yoiu fork a big community project, like udev, in a github |
| 54 |
account called gentoo, people *will* think it is a Gentoo project. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some |
| 57 |
disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't sponsored by |
| 58 |
Gentoo, but this udev-ng/eudev/whatever thing does the opposite and |
| 59 |
actually advertise the Gentoo sponsorship with the sentence "This is a |
| 60 |
Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently being done with |
| 61 |
openrc." in their README |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I don't think that someone can claim this sponsorship without a council vote. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
I disagree with this fork, and tend to agree with what Greg and Diego |
| 66 |
said before in this thread. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
BR, |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Rafael |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
> P.s. Just to emphasise it even more: There's a pornview fork there too. |
| 73 |
> I don't recall Gentoo Council acknowledging it as default imageviewer. |
| 74 |
> We should definitely put it into agenda. </reductio ad absurdum> |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
You really want to compare pornview, that was dead and someone kindly |
| 77 |
resurrected, with udev, that is actively maintained and the quality of |
| 78 |
the fork is questionable? :( |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
>> And if that is the decision of the council, I would expect the ability |
| 81 |
>> to have some type of discussion about it, wouldn't you? |
| 82 |
>> |
| 83 |
>> Also, the whole issue with the copyrights is very serious, for the |
| 84 |
>> reasons I've stated before. Don't mess with copyrights, developers, and |
| 85 |
>> companies, take them very serious, as they are the basis for our |
| 86 |
>> licenses. |
| 87 |
>> |
| 88 |
>> thanks, |
| 89 |
>> |
| 90 |
>> greg k-h |
| 91 |
>> |
| 92 |
> |
| 93 |
> |
| 94 |
> |
| 95 |
|
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
|
| 98 |
-- |
| 99 |
Rafael Goncalves Martins |
| 100 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 101 |
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/ |
Archives