On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:35 AM orbea <or...@riseup.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:17:00 +0100 > Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> writes: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:36 AM Eddie Chapman <ed...@ehuk.net> > > > wrote: > > >> in Gentoo. Have any of these 4 maintainers publicly said > > >> (anywhere) that they are not interested in being maintainers > > >> anymore (which is fine if that is the case)? We're not talking > > >> here about a lone maintainer of some peripheral package that's > > >> disappeared leaving an orphaned package. > > > > > > It isn't like somebody is censoring the lists or waging commit wars > > > on the metadata.xml/mask file. If somebody was eager to maintain > > > it I'm sure they'd have spoken up. > > > > > >> I'm an outsider to Gentoo development (just a heavy user for over > > >> a decade both personally and professionally) so I might have > > >> missed something. I just find it puzzling. > > > > > > I'm not puzzled by what is going on, or by your email, because it > > > happens basically anytime a high-profile package is treecleaned. > > > Yes, Gentoo is about choice, but somebody has to actually do work > > > to make the choices viable. There are always more people > > > interested in using software than maintaining it. The frustration > > > is completely understandable, but also kinda unavoidable. > > > > > > Repo QA standards don't mean that it has to barely work for your > > > specific use case. The package has to deal with compatibility > > > issues with stuff you don't use as well, which is why maintaining a > > > system package can be hard work. It is usually less of an issue > > > for more ordinary applications, which tend to have fewer > > > interactions. If it is "good enough" for you as it is, then just > > > move it to a private overlay and keep using it. You probably would > > > need to override a virtual or two as well. Or publish your work > > > somewhere others can use it. > > > > Yes. We value having a coherent system with decent UX and we have > > to choose what we can support. Users are free to override those > > choices in local repositories - and if they want advice on the best > > way to do so, they're free to ask. > > > > As evidenced by the ::libressl overlay where I am repeatedly > copy/pasting changes from ::gentoo that have nothing to do with > libressl this is not a very good solution. This is a huge amount of > redundant and pointless effort that would be better suited being > directly in the ::gentoo repo.
I think most people aren't going to be swayed by "it's really inefficient for me to do $xyz outside of ::gentoo" where xyz is something that they find useless. > What would be required so this is not required for eudev too? At the > risk of repeating myself its working on my systems and I am willing to > look at bugs and put in effort into keeping it functional. > > I don't think this is a matter of not having people willing to put > effort in, but that no one wants to let them have the chance. Conspiracy alert! It's been more than 2 years since https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2021-08-24-eudev-retirement.html People have had plenty of time. More chances than were fair have been given. Nothing has changed, except eudev has further diverged from upstream udev.
