| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:41:59AM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 13 April 2013 22:30, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:27:24PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:43:14 -0500 |
| 5 |
> >> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> > this eclass is an alternative to systemd.eclass, and maintains |
| 8 |
> >> > full compatibility with it; however, it expands it so that it can query |
| 9 |
> >> > pkgconfig for the directory paths. It returns the same default paths as |
| 10 |
> >> > systemd.eclass if there is an error with pkgconfig. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> Alternative? So now developers decide whether they want support systemd |
| 13 |
> >> A or systemd B? And we fork packages so that users can have matching |
| 14 |
> >> set of packages? |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> If you listened, you would know that the only reason I didn't apply |
| 17 |
> >> your patches to the eclass was that nothing used them. If you really |
| 18 |
> >> want to commit your quasi-fork, I will update the eclass. You |
| 19 |
> >> don't really have to play silly games like this. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Ok, that is the better aproach anyway, go ahead and update the eclass. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Thanks much. :-) |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > William |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Am I the only one wondering why you didn't discuss this before you |
| 29 |
> submit a new eclass for review? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'm answering this on the list here for completeness only. I feel like a |
| 32 |
question here calls for a response. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
This started with this thread [1], where I proposed a patch to the |
| 35 |
systemd eclass. That patch was rejected as you can see with no real |
| 36 |
explanation from mgorny. This lead to private discussions with him which |
| 37 |
did not go well. I have all of those emails still, so I will go back and |
| 38 |
see if I can find where he gave me the explanation he is claiming here, |
| 39 |
but I honestly do not remember any such explanation coming from him |
| 40 |
until now. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
My original patch has been accepted now, so that should take care of that |
| 43 |
part of the situation. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Mgorny, thanks for working with me. :-) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
William |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
[1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/269385?page=last |
Archives