Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Questions for Candidates (was: Questioning/Interviewing council nominees)

[Ben de Groot]

On 1 July 2013 19:16, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote:
> Rich Freeman schrieb:
>>> I did not say that maintainers can ignore policy. The removal of
>>> ebuilds must follow certain rules which are set in policy.
>> IMO this really doesn't say anything at all.  Of course maintainers
>> have to follow policy.  The question is what should the policy be?
>
> I think I am beginning to understand what you want to say. You want the
> council (or some other body) to act as enforcer to bring maintainers in
> line with prevailing opinion. Sorry, I am not supporting that.
>
>> The original question was whether we should be forking or splitting
>> packages over adding single files when the maintainer doesn't want
>> them in the original package.  Right now we have no explicit policy
>> governing this.
>
> Yes, and due to the absence of policy it is the maintainer who has the
> final say. That is how it is currently, and how I think it should be in
> the future too. GLEP 39 specifically says that you cannot monopolize the
> package, and anyone can fork the ebuild. That is sufficient remedy
> against uncooperative maintainers in my eyes.
>
> I wrote in a previous message that I would reconsider my position if the
> amount of forked packages grew to unmanageable proportions. But until
> then, if the kids cannot get along they shall play on separate playgrounds.
>
>>> With x32 specifically, a number of people including some upstreams think
>>> that the whole concept is a bad idea. A case could be made for patches
>>> that #ifdef x32 and which compile to a no-op on other arches, but even
>>> those must be maintained. What if the patch no longer applies after a
>>> version bump?
>> Well, since I'm only talking about WELL-SUPPORTED project-related
>> work, just ask the project team to fix the patch.  If they don't in a
>> reasonable timeframe, then it isn't well-supported and the maintainer
>> can do whatever they want with it.  Project teams should only take on
>> patches if they think they can sustain them.  Most likely for
>> something like x32 they'd only do it for strategic packages anyway
>> (toolchain, etc).
>
> But in this hypothetical scenario you have unloaded additional work on
> the maintainer. He just wants to bring the latest and greatest version
> to his users, and the failing patch prevents him from doing that. He has
> to request and then wait for the a new patch, and if he bumps the
> package anyway after timeout risks breaking x32 users' systems.
> If he does this voluntarily, fine. If the patch was forced on him,
> putting him in this dilemma is not fair.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>
>

Thank you for this voice of reason.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer