Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@g.o>
To: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o, council@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:45:00
Message-Id: 20191202104449.29f98ddd@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics? by "Michał Górny"
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:10:55 +0100 Michał Górny wrote:

>On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 00:26 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> The next council meeting will be on Sunday 2019-12-08, 19:00 UTC in >> the #gentoo-council channel on Freenode. Please reply to this mail >> with desired agenda topics. >> > >I'd like to pass a big question™ towards the Council since there seems >to be some disagreement on the direction Gentoo should take: > >=== >Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work >together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be >allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore >everybody else? >=== > >To explain what I mean with an extreme example: in the past we had >a developer who blocked adding systemd units to his own packages >because of his own personal agenda against systemd. This was >obviously harmful to systemd users who couldn't install use those >packages normally, and was harmful to consistent user experience >across Gentoo.
Perhaps you even mean my past actions here because that was exactly what I did with my packages. The reason is not because I want to actively sabotage systemd in Gentoo but because I cannot test the unit files as I do not use/have a Gentoo installation with systemd available. What I did was to assign such request bugs to our systemd team and gave them permission to add these systemd units to my packages.
>In my opinion, such behavior is unacceptable but given that similar >issues regularly emerge, maybe I'm wrong. >
Cheers Lars -- Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93 9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39

Replies