1 |
On Sat, May 10, 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, May 10, 2014, hasufell wrote: |
3 |
> > Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop |
4 |
> > software for "Linux". Instead (like valve), people start to develop for |
5 |
> > certain distros only (like Ubuntu), because it's just too much work to |
6 |
> > bother with all this hackery-here-hackery-there-incompatible-here |
7 |
> > things. Maybe also a reason they start to bundle all libraries for every |
8 |
> > single game (among the convenience factor), effectively decreasing |
9 |
> > security overall. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I'm with you here, but what is the solution? |
12 |
|
13 |
He outlined the solution and seemant resolved the implementation |
14 |
"difficulty" question the day before your mail, amongst others, so |
15 |
I'm unsure why it wasn't simply accepted. It seems like a no-brainer |
16 |
to me, although it is a specific situation because lua is a language. |
17 |
The latter is more relevant to consideration of whether they are |
18 |
being unreasonable. |
19 |
|
20 |
The solution is trivial and it means you're fixing the correct upstream. |
21 |
|
22 |
> So, in your mind what would a sane policy look like? Should packages |
23 |
> like lua not provide pkg-config files even though apparently every |
24 |
> other distro does? If so, where do we draw the line? Do we follow |
25 |
> some particular distro like Debian? Do we list 4 distros and allow |
26 |
> the file if 3/4 use it? If we don't allow a pkg-config in general can |
27 |
> maintainers still have a "gentoo-foo" file? |
28 |
|
29 |
If we don't provide it, period, there's no line to draw. I'm not saying |
30 |
that applies to every package, but it self-evidently applies here, |
31 |
and I agree with hasufell that it applies everywhere, if we want to do |
32 |
more than follow the crowd for the sake of it, at the expense of our |
33 |
reputation of helping upstreams fix their builds. The upstream with |
34 |
the problem is more than happy to get a fix for the library they |
35 |
depend on, and the patch is trivial. |
36 |
|
37 |
Remember, no-one at all is talking about not shipping .pc; they're |
38 |
only talking about fixing a midstream consumer of an upstream |
39 |
which does NOT ship a .pc file. Is anyone seriously suggesting the |
40 |
midstream do not want to work with their upstream in all situations? |
41 |
|
42 |
> If we want a firm policy then there needs to be a proposal for one |
43 |
> that makes sense. Otherwise the council is 95% likely to just say "we |
44 |
> recommend that maintainers use care when creating pkg-config files but |
45 |
> we leave it to their discretion," because that is the only thing that |
46 |
> makes any sense when you can't come up with a rule that makes sense. |
47 |
|
48 |
The trouble with making general rules for specific situations is you |
49 |
always have to account for the exception to every rule, and more: |
50 |
keep reviewing the basis for the inevitable exceptions to see if they |
51 |
still have standing. But it appears you already have a policy that |
52 |
seems quite sane: |
53 |
|
54 |
On Mon, May 12, 2014, hasufell wrote: |
55 |
> I said repeatedly... if it is the ONLY way to fix something, then we |
56 |
> have good reason to bend the rule. (and even then it should be made |
57 |
> hard, as in: open this for discussion first. In addition, all of these |
58 |
> non-upstream files have to be documented as such.) |
59 |
> |
60 |
> However, currently, this is not a rule, just some policy people would |
61 |
> rather ignore since it might cause you a bit more work. |
62 |
|
63 |
There does appear to be a trend to try to sideline the dev ML, on the |
64 |
basis that "not all developers have to subscribe" which is rich coming |
65 |
from one of its most prolific posters. Perhaps it's a phase, as istr |
66 |
similar periods in the past. There are good reasons why drobbins made |
67 |
the dev ML open to externals, who don't have a high rate of churn, and |
68 |
why the GLEP process requires wider discussion on this same list. |
69 |
|
70 |
I can think of several major changes that by all rights should have |
71 |
gone through GLEPs, as well as being worked on in overlay. What |
72 |
happened to the idea of getting professional results from an informal |
73 |
group of volunteers dedicated to that end? Maybe i dreamt those years, |
74 |
but some of your herds still manage it. |
75 |
|
76 |
Regards, |
77 |
steveL |
78 |
-- |
79 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |