On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Nils Freydank <holgers...@posteo.de> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 27. Dezember 2017, 22:33:03 CET schrieb R0b0t1: >> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:32 AM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > As he said, he contactedd the maintainers in ample time, so I would say >> > that since they didn't respond he went ahead in good faith. I'll get the >> > link later, but as I recall, the dev manual recommends a 2-4 week wait >> > for maintainers not responding then we can assume that what we are doing >> > is ok. >> >> This assumes there is some pressing need for the change to take place, >> which I am not sure there is. I can understand wanting to make the >> change for consistency's sake, but the feature is important enough >> that I think a suitable replacement should explicitly be found before >> continuing. E.g. affirmative feedback from all affected packages. > > Often a fix timeline is the only way to achieve any responses - or at least > get stuff done, even if the matter itself is not urgent at all. In this > specific case the points Michael had were quite clear, and the timespan of > two month was long enough to react somehow (at least in the context of typical > periods in Gentoo, e.g. last rite/removal period of 30 days). >
Yes, but as per past comments it seems some people think the action taken was slightly inappropriate. It feels like you didn't read what I said: in some cases, a fix timeline may not be appropriate. I don't know when that is. > On topic: There are some users including myself that find cracklib mostly > annoying. I use strong passwords (or ssh keys only) where I can, and cracklib > annoys me with the request to set "secure passwords" for a container > playground, where I want root:test as login credentials. > Beside that the point that profiles in general should contain as least USE as > possible (see the bug report for that). > I must be confused, because this is the only part of your message that is offtopic. >> Enforcement of rules or Gentoo development guidelines does not happen >> consistently, and the times when rules are enforced "for consistency's >> sake" seem completely arbitrary. There seems to be no extant problems >> caused by the flag as set, so why focus on this specifically? > > To me these times look as they're based upon agreement between the involved > parties, and in itself consistently, e.g. at least 30 days masking before > removal out of the tree, or in this case at least two to four weeks to let > others respond. > But why male models^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfocus on this issue in particular? If I understand the situation, nothing is actually *broken.* That is why I was questioning consistency. >> There is a lot of discussion of not burdening developers with >> pointless talk or changes. If that is a goal, then why is this posting >> receiving so many replies? > > With all due respect, your posting didn't bring any new relevant aspects into > this thread on this mailing list with the explicit focus and topic of Gentoo > development, and might be exactly part of the "pointless talk" you mention. > > My one isn't better; I just want to point that out to you, because you tend to > write messages with this kind of meta questions about the cause of things. > > If you want to discuss this, I'd prefer another place than this list. > As someone watching from the outside I see this type of discussion crop up from time to time. All I am suggesting is thinking about actions before they are acted out. This isn't to say what was undertaken was not thought out - but the patterns of behavior I see that that decision exists within are what I am suggesting needs more careful consideration. If you can not see the utility in thinking about thinking, I am not sure we would have much to talk about. Respectfully, R0b0t1