1 |
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 12/20/2016 06:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> We don't have some |
4 |
>> committee on high pick a winner and tell all the maintainers that they |
5 |
>> all have to move from supporting x to supporting y. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Fair points across the board but this stood out to me. We *do* have |
8 |
> groups that, on some subset of the tree, exert what they feel to be |
9 |
> winners. QA, the KDE team, and GNOME team have all made formal |
10 |
> recommendations or requirements that they expect to see in ebuilds going |
11 |
> forward. QA is blessed by council of course, so they have a bit more |
12 |
> sway. But we're lying if we say we don't have committees making |
13 |
> decisions on packaging guidelines. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> That's not the same as choosing a single package and telling every one |
16 |
> to scram, but we're not hands-off, either. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
Anybody wishing to add stuff to the main repository does not get a |
20 |
choice in following QA policy (though these matters can be appealed to |
21 |
the Council). However, their policies for the most part are fairly |
22 |
sensible and concern stuff like listing things as a dependency if you |
23 |
link to them and so on. |
24 |
|
25 |
KDE and GNOME developers work as a team, but these teams do not have |
26 |
any exclusive control over anything in the tree. If a Gentoo |
27 |
developer doesn't like what they've done with kmail they can add a |
28 |
kmail2 or kmail-rich0 or whatever that works they way they want it to. |
29 |
Heck, if a bunch of devs wanted to do their own thing they could start |
30 |
a kde-improved team if they wanted to. |
31 |
|
32 |
In general this doesn't happen, because the developers interested in |
33 |
maintaining these packages tend to agree on how they want to maintain |
34 |
them, or at least they don't care enough to bother with forking them. |
35 |
|
36 |
How do you think we ended up with eudev? |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Rich |