Re: [gentoo-dev] new eclass: systemd-next.eclass

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:49:26 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:41:59AM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On 13 April 2013 22:30, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:27:24PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:43:14 -0500
> > >> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > this eclass is an alternative to systemd.eclass, and maintains
> > >> > full compatibility with it; however, it expands it so that it can query
> > >> > pkgconfig for the directory paths. It returns the same default paths as
> > >> > systemd.eclass if there is an error with pkgconfig.
> > >>
> > >> Alternative? So now developers decide whether they want support systemd
> > >> A or systemd B? And we fork packages so that users can have matching
> > >> set of packages?
> > >>
> > >> If you listened, you would know that the only reason I didn't apply
> > >> your patches to the eclass was that nothing used them. If you really
> > >> want to commit your quasi-fork, I will update the eclass. You
> > >> don't really have to play silly games like this.
> > >
> > > Ok, that is the better aproach anyway, go ahead and update the eclass.
> > >
> > > Thanks much. :-)
> > >
> > > William
> > >
> >
> > Am I the only one wondering why you didn't discuss this before you
> > submit a new eclass for review?
>
> I'm answering this on the list here for completeness only. I feel like a
> question here calls for a response.
>
> This started with this thread [1], where I proposed a patch to the
> systemd eclass. That patch was rejected as you can see with no real
> explanation from mgorny.

For completeness -- there was no real explanation because I explained
why I don't want to change that in the previous thread you started,
and you nevertheless ignored me and submitted the patch.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny