| 1 |
Hello Daniel! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I don't feel strongly enough to make an objection to your commit, |
| 4 |
> but I think pciutils is doing the right thing, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The question is not if some software is doing the right thing or not |
| 7 |
but if our packages behave like they should for our users. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> and despite me and Mike putting a hours into getting a decent HAL |
| 10 |
> patch together the response I got was that as upstream they are |
| 11 |
> simply "not interested" (no technical or logical objections |
| 12 |
> provided), so I don't feel you should be putting workarounds in |
| 13 |
> pciutils just to make HAL happy. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Neither is the question if any of us are happy but if our *users* are |
| 16 |
happy when their installation process breaks because of "that HAL |
| 17 |
bug". We don't make HAL, its upstream or anyone but our users happy. |
| 18 |
Our obligation is primarily to them. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I am attaching a HAL ebuild patch which is the approach |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
... that still potentially allows things to break because of |
| 23 |
animosities among ourselves. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We have a good solution, namely robbat2's, which will make sure things |
| 26 |
don't break for our users. IMO, that's the way to go because the other |
| 27 |
approaches make us look bad and are unworthy of a distribution that |
| 28 |
wants to be taken seriously. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives