1 |
Am Mittwoch, 27. Dezember 2017, 22:33:03 CET schrieb R0b0t1: |
2 |
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > As he said, he contactedd the maintainers in ample time, so I would say |
4 |
> > that since they didn't respond he went ahead in good faith. I'll get the |
5 |
> > link later, but as I recall, the dev manual recommends a 2-4 week wait |
6 |
> > for maintainers not responding then we can assume that what we are doing |
7 |
> > is ok. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> This assumes there is some pressing need for the change to take place, |
10 |
> which I am not sure there is. I can understand wanting to make the |
11 |
> change for consistency's sake, but the feature is important enough |
12 |
> that I think a suitable replacement should explicitly be found before |
13 |
> continuing. E.g. affirmative feedback from all affected packages. |
14 |
|
15 |
Often a fix timeline is the only way to achieve any responses - or at least |
16 |
get stuff done, even if the matter itself is not urgent at all. In this |
17 |
specific case the points Michael had were quite clear, and the timespan of |
18 |
two month was long enough to react somehow (at least in the context of typical |
19 |
periods in Gentoo, e.g. last rite/removal period of 30 days). |
20 |
|
21 |
On topic: There are some users including myself that find cracklib mostly |
22 |
annoying. I use strong passwords (or ssh keys only) where I can, and cracklib |
23 |
annoys me with the request to set "secure passwords" for a container |
24 |
playground, where I want root:test as login credentials. |
25 |
Beside that the point that profiles in general should contain as least USE as |
26 |
possible (see the bug report for that). |
27 |
|
28 |
> Enforcement of rules or Gentoo development guidelines does not happen |
29 |
> consistently, and the times when rules are enforced "for consistency's |
30 |
> sake" seem completely arbitrary. There seems to be no extant problems |
31 |
> caused by the flag as set, so why focus on this specifically? |
32 |
|
33 |
To me these times look as they're based upon agreement between the involved |
34 |
parties, and in itself consistently, e.g. at least 30 days masking before |
35 |
removal out of the tree, or in this case at least two to four weeks to let |
36 |
others respond. |
37 |
|
38 |
> There is a lot of discussion of not burdening developers with |
39 |
> pointless talk or changes. If that is a goal, then why is this posting |
40 |
> receiving so many replies? |
41 |
|
42 |
With all due respect, your posting didn't bring any new relevant aspects into |
43 |
this thread on this mailing list with the explicit focus and topic of Gentoo |
44 |
development, and might be exactly part of the "pointless talk" you mention. |
45 |
|
46 |
My one isn't better; I just want to point that out to you, because you tend to |
47 |
write messages with this kind of meta questions about the cause of things. |
48 |
|
49 |
If you want to discuss this, I'd prefer another place than this list. |
50 |
|
51 |
Regards, |
52 |
Nils |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
GPG fingerprint: '00EF D31F 1B60 D5DB ADB8 31C1 C0EC E696 0E54 475B' |
56 |
Nils Freydank |