Fernando Lemos <fernando...@gmail.com> writes: > Enrico Weigelt <weig...@metux.de> wrote:
>> ACK. Sometimes upstreams doing really stange things (maybe because they >> dont have any package management in mind), that should be fixed. If >> upstream doesnt do those fixes, distros have to catch in. Sometimes, I think Red Hat makes some of these design decisions because RPM's handling of configuration files sucks. If it had always behaved like dpkg, I wonder if they wouldn't use designs that honor configuration files somewhat more. > Are you guys applying for maintainership for this huge delta you want to > introduce between upstream and us? Are you becoming new, reputable > upstreams for that forked software? If not, please refrain from telling > people what to do. This, however, is a really good point, and is the thing that keeps running through the back of my head reading this thread. There seems to be a lot of sentiment that people wish udev (in particular) would work differently and better integrate with a split / and /usr with only / being mounted during boot. But it's worth keeping in mind 2.1.1 of the constitution: you can't make people in the project do work they don't want to do. Clearly, Marco is not interested in maintaining this sort of substantial fork of upstream udev. In fact, one of his primary points in this discussion is that this is a ton of work for (at least in his opinion, and I think he has a credible prima facie case, if not a universally persuasive one) somewhat marginal benefit and it's not work he's interested in doing. People can't just tell him "no, you have to go do that work"; if it's so important to Debian to go a different direction than udev's upstream, that means Debian will need to fork it, which probably means *someone in this thread* is going to have to fork it. So who's volunteering to be the new udev upstream? (And, really, don't we have enough work to do that isn't getting done because we don't have enough people?) Note that Steve's point, namely that he (if I'm reading him right) thinks that the upstream changes are being overstated and that upstream's direction isn't actually going to cause problems for us, is an entirely separate one and not something I'm addressing in the above. And is certainly something to explore before we start arguing over who's going to fork something that may not be an issue at all. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwg1e5x5....@windlord.stanford.edu