| 1 |
On Friday 09 February 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 02:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > that really isnt a valid stance to take with the package in question ... |
| 4 |
> > by this logic, i can turn around and screw with the toolchain and if no |
| 5 |
> > one likes what i'm doing, then that's their problem and they can go fork |
| 6 |
> > themselves |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> No. It fully applies. Notice I responded to him talking about |
| 9 |
> "baselayout-ng", which was after he'd already decided to leave the |
| 10 |
> current baselayout alone. So yes, he is completely free to do with it |
| 11 |
> as he wishes. If we don't like it, we just stick with the "old" |
| 12 |
> baselayout. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
forking the package is retarded. maintain backward compability and there's no |
| 15 |
reason to fork it. baselayout isnt Roy's package, it isnt my package, it |
| 16 |
isnt anyone's. it belongs to Gentoo as a whole which means changes to it |
| 17 |
affect everyone in the distribution. |
| 18 |
-mike |
Archives