| 1 |
On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:09:32 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser <sera@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream |
| 7 |
> > and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream |
| 8 |
> > [1] Therefore I'd require an upstream bug for each unit that we add. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Makes sense, though I wouldn't necessarily make it a hard requirement. |
| 11 |
> Also, upstream units may not be usable as-is. They might reference |
| 12 |
> incorrect file locations (though I'd hope not for the most part), and |
| 13 |
> in particular dependency naming will always be a challenge. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Adopting a package to distribution specifics is perfectly valid. But |
| 16 |
here it's about adding functionality to a package that wasn't there |
| 17 |
before. The usual reaction in such situations is to tell users to bug |
| 18 |
upstream about it first. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Upstream rejection of a unit should certainly not lead to Gentoo |
| 22 |
> rejection of a unit, any more than their rejection of a script for |
| 23 |
> OpenRC should. Upstreams will likely be slow to embrace the |
| 24 |
> init-scripts-aren't-just-for-distros thing. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Rich |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If an upstream bug is filed and upstream says fuck off there is still a |
| 30 |
bug report which would meet the requirement. Maybe some other distro |
| 31 |
even filed the bug already for us. |
Archives