| 1 |
On 21 April 2013 22:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o>wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Denis Dupeyron schrieb: |
| 4 |
> > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not |
| 5 |
> > propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being |
| 6 |
> > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch |
| 7 |
> > it without talking to that person or team first. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a |
| 10 |
> review |
| 11 |
> of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several weeks |
| 12 |
> after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after the |
| 13 |
> change was applied. |
| 14 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455074 |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You are missing an important part of the story. |
| 18 |
See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455070 where we discuss |
| 19 |
the same issue for freetype. (Yes I should have been explicit for fontconfig |
| 20 |
too, my bad.) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I initially reacted within hours, saying that his proposal was in my eyes |
| 23 |
not ready yet. I assumed I was clear enough in my refusal, but |
| 24 |
apparently Michał didn't understand it that way. He then contacted |
| 25 |
the herd a few weeks later, when I was on holiday, and got Luca's permission |
| 26 |
to commit, not taking into account he hadn't touched those packages in |
| 27 |
many years. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
After I found out, I was a bit pissed off about it, but I was too busy with |
| 30 |
work to deal with it (and thought it wise to cool down a bit before taking |
| 31 |
action). I then saw bug reports about the freetype multilib ebuild revision |
| 32 |
flooding in, and was satisfied after it got masked. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
But then it got unmasked again (I assume by Michał), and when I found |
| 35 |
some time to take a closer look again at freetype and fontconfig, I decided |
| 36 |
to mask those versions, as I still don't think they are ready (especially |
| 37 |
for |
| 38 |
ebuilds that might go stable soon). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Then the maintainer came and masked his package, which I see nothing wrong |
| 44 |
> with either. Except for the violation of visibility requirements only in |
| 45 |
> this |
| 46 |
> particular case. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
I understand this is a bit of a mess, and I'm sorry for my part in it, but |
| 50 |
I'm |
| 51 |
not part of the x11 herd, so I would rather leave it up to you to decide |
| 52 |
how |
| 53 |
you want to handle this. |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Cheers, |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 58 |
Gentoo developer |
| 59 |
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin |
Archives